"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Look around you, Jimmy. There is absolutely, positively no way in hell
that the enormous increase in truck ownership over the past 30 years is
due to actual need.

-Most don't even have a hitch on them. They tow nothing.

-There've been surveys indicating that the average SUV owner carries 1-2
passengers most of the time, and never more than 4.

-We have not seen a 10-fold increase in the number of construction workers
and trades people. Furthermore, I have housing developments in progress
near me. I see more of the workers arriving in cars, not trucks. You don't
need a truck to haul 2 hammers, a tool belt, and a cordless drill. They're
smart enough to figure this out, and apparently, they see no need to drive
a pickup because someone else does. So much for "construction sites", as
you mentioned. Too bad soccer moms can't figure this out.

You keep coming back to people who actually need them. Do you know what
the typical female truck buyer gives as a reason?


I do. .... (this is really getting comical) ... maybe not "typical" ....
but..

Mrs.E used to have a Lincoln Navigator. She liked it because it had some
room for her stuff, grandkids and the fact that she felt "safe" in such a
large vehicle.

This spring she traded it in and got one of those new Lincoln pickup trucks
(I forget what you call them). It looks just like a Navigator from the
front, but with a pickup bed in the back. (It's basically a dolled up Ford
F-150)

She loves this now, because it still seats 5 people, but she can easily haul
around her horse saddles, bales of hay, shopping conquests, boat stuff,
flowers, pots, trees and other bulky, large items that she used to have to
wait for me to pick up for her.

RCE

"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cool. Now I'll get Stalin-esque. Slap an enormous, annual tax on
trucks,
unless an owner can show that he actually has a purpose for it, other
than
"I just wanted a Dodge with a hemi so I could hang chrome accessories
on
it". No trailer registered to the same owner, meaning he tows nothing?
He
gets taxed. Not in a profession which actually requires a truck, like
carpenters & landscapers? He gets taxed. If a doctor decides to become
a
plumber, there are ways of giving him back his surcharge in future
years.
No
more buying a huge truck just because every 4 years, you need to bring
home
a bale of peat moss.


Hey, don't forget to slap that tax on those who could've gotten away
with using a minivan but CHOSE to get a vehicle with rear-wheel drive
instead, although they had NO REAL REASON for it, other than, "I didn't
want front wheel drive".


I had actual experience towing with front wheel drive. Only stupid people
suggest it as a good idea for towing. Passable, but far from optimal. How
about you? What do you have to back up YOUR comment about it?

I tow my boat with a FWD Dodge Caravan. It is completely passable. I
could choose a RWD for convenience, but it IS NOT a necessity, it is a
CHOICE.

More left-wing-nut hypocrisy.

Till


So.....my personal observations about towing with my previous vehicle are
based on politics? Now, there's an intensely stupid theory.

wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article in the latest Economist about this. Here's
a little of it:

As oil production slows,
prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new
technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil,
but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come."


----------------

$60/bbl for "decades to come"? How far from the wastebasket does one
need to stand to score 3 points with a paper wad?


According to his theory, $100/bbl will add a couple of more decades of
availability.

RCE

I don't know when that theory was expounded, but that $60/bbl oil
lasted maybe a few weeks or months. Certainly not "decades". We're
closing in on $80.


Chuck, the author was not claiming that a certain price would last for
decades. His point was that the higher the price, the longer remaining oil
supplies will last.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Look around you, Jimmy. There is absolutely, positively no way in hell
that the enormous increase in truck ownership over the past 30 years is
due to actual need.

-Most don't even have a hitch on them. They tow nothing.

-There've been surveys indicating that the average SUV owner carries 1-2
passengers most of the time, and never more than 4.

-We have not seen a 10-fold increase in the number of construction
workers and trades people. Furthermore, I have housing developments in
progress near me. I see more of the workers arriving in cars, not trucks.
You don't need a truck to haul 2 hammers, a tool belt, and a cordless
drill. They're smart enough to figure this out, and apparently, they see
no need to drive a pickup because someone else does. So much for
"construction sites", as you mentioned. Too bad soccer moms can't figure
this out.

You keep coming back to people who actually need them. Do you know what
the typical female truck buyer gives as a reason?


I do. .... (this is really getting comical) ... maybe not "typical" ....
but..

Mrs.E used to have a Lincoln Navigator. She liked it because it had some
room for her stuff, grandkids and the fact that she felt "safe" in such a
large vehicle.

This spring she traded it in and got one of those new Lincoln pickup
trucks (I forget what you call them). It looks just like a Navigator from
the front, but with a pickup bed in the back. (It's basically a dolled up
Ford F-150)

She loves this now, because it still seats 5 people, but she can easily
haul around her horse saddles, bales of hay, shopping conquests, boat
stuff, flowers, pots, trees and other bulky, large items that she used to
have to wait for me to pick up for her.

RCE




But she is a WOMAN and according to Doug WOMEN do not need trucks, only MEN
do. She is nothing more than a soccer MOM riding around in a MAN's truck.
Doug has evidence to prove it.

Now kindly tell Mrs. E. that Doug Kanter would like her to sell her truck
as, being a woman, she obviously does she *need* one. ;-)

Doug Kanter wrote:
"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...

Doug Kanter wrote:
"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com...

Cool. Now I'll get Stalin-esque. Slap an enormous, annual tax on
trucks,
unless an owner can show that he actually has a purpose for it, other
than
"I just wanted a Dodge with a hemi so I could hang chrome accessories
on
it". No trailer registered to the same owner, meaning he tows nothing?
He
gets taxed. Not in a profession which actually requires a truck, like
carpenters & landscapers? He gets taxed. If a doctor decides to become
a
plumber, there are ways of giving him back his surcharge in future
years.
No
more buying a huge truck just because every 4 years, you need to bring
home
a bale of peat moss.


Hey, don't forget to slap that tax on those who could've gotten away
with using a minivan but CHOSE to get a vehicle with rear-wheel drive
instead, although they had NO REAL REASON for it, other than, "I didn't
want front wheel drive".


I had actual experience towing with front wheel drive. Only stupid people
suggest it as a good idea for towing. Passable, but far from optimal. How
about you? What do you have to back up YOUR comment about it?

I tow my boat with a FWD Dodge Caravan. It is completely passable. I
could choose a RWD for convenience, but it IS NOT a necessity, it is a
CHOICE.

More left-wing-nut hypocrisy.

Till


So.....my personal observations about towing with my previous vehicle are
based on politics? Now, there's an intensely stupid theory.

Not your 'personal oberervations', just your ability to suggest your
reason for owning a gas guzzler is any more valid than anyone elses
reason.

You just can't admit that it's not, but you still attempt to hold
others in contempt, criticizing their reasons as invalid. That
behaviour really is par for the leftists, as it has been for various
groups in the past (Nazi's, pseudo-'Christian' groups, Soviet Union
Communists, the KKK...) who wish to dominate and control others to
their own benefit.

Till

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

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Look around you, Jimmy. There is absolutely, positively no way in hell
that the enormous increase in truck ownership over the past 30 years is
due to actual need.

-Most don't even have a hitch on them. They tow nothing.

-There've been surveys indicating that the average SUV owner carries 1-2
passengers most of the time, and never more than 4.

-We have not seen a 10-fold increase in the number of construction
workers and trades people. Furthermore, I have housing developments in
progress near me. I see more of the workers arriving in cars, not
trucks. You don't need a truck to haul 2 hammers, a tool belt, and a
cordless drill. They're smart enough to figure this out, and apparently,
they see no need to drive a pickup because someone else does. So much
for "construction sites", as you mentioned. Too bad soccer moms can't
figure this out.

You keep coming back to people who actually need them. Do you know what
the typical female truck buyer gives as a reason?


I do. .... (this is really getting comical) ... maybe not "typical" ....
but..

Mrs.E used to have a Lincoln Navigator. She liked it because it had some
room for her stuff, grandkids and the fact that she felt "safe" in such a
large vehicle.

This spring she traded it in and got one of those new Lincoln pickup
trucks (I forget what you call them). It looks just like a Navigator
from the front, but with a pickup bed in the back. (It's basically a
dolled up Ford F-150)

She loves this now, because it still seats 5 people, but she can easily
haul around her horse saddles, bales of hay, shopping conquests, boat
stuff, flowers, pots, trees and other bulky, large items that she used to
have to wait for me to pick up for her.

RCE




But she is a WOMAN and according to Doug WOMEN do not need trucks, only
MEN do. She is nothing more than a soccer MOM riding around in a MAN's
truck. Doug has evidence to prove it.

Now kindly tell Mrs. E. that Doug Kanter would like her to sell her truck
as, being a woman, she obviously does not *need* one. ;-)


edit

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...



I understand Viagra is suspected of causing eye problems. I guess the
truck is safer in that regard.


Nope. I've never been a "keep up with the Jone's" kind of guy.

RCE

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

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


Look around you, Jimmy. There is absolutely, positively no way in hell
that the enormous increase in truck ownership over the past 30 years is
due to actual need.

-Most don't even have a hitch on them. They tow nothing.

-There've been surveys indicating that the average SUV owner carries 1-2
passengers most of the time, and never more than 4.

-We have not seen a 10-fold increase in the number of construction
workers and trades people. Furthermore, I have housing developments in
progress near me. I see more of the workers arriving in cars, not
trucks. You don't need a truck to haul 2 hammers, a tool belt, and a
cordless drill. They're smart enough to figure this out, and apparently,
they see no need to drive a pickup because someone else does. So much
for "construction sites", as you mentioned. Too bad soccer moms can't
figure this out.

You keep coming back to people who actually need them. Do you know what
the typical female truck buyer gives as a reason?


I do. .... (this is really getting comical) ... maybe not "typical" ....
but..

Mrs.E used to have a Lincoln Navigator. She liked it because it had some
room for her stuff, grandkids and the fact that she felt "safe" in such a
large vehicle.

This spring she traded it in and got one of those new Lincoln pickup
trucks (I forget what you call them). It looks just like a Navigator
from the front, but with a pickup bed in the back. (It's basically a
dolled up Ford F-150)

She loves this now, because it still seats 5 people, but she can easily
haul around her horse saddles, bales of hay, shopping conquests, boat
stuff, flowers, pots, trees and other bulky, large items that she used to
have to wait for me to pick up for her.

RCE




But she is a WOMAN and according to Doug WOMEN do not need trucks, only
MEN do. She is nothing more than a soccer MOM riding around in a MAN's
truck. Doug has evidence to prove it.

Now kindly tell Mrs. E. that Doug Kanter would like her to sell her truck
as, being a woman, she obviously does she *need* one. ;-)


I was going to remind you of your defect yet again, but I'll wait and see
how RCE interpereted my comment about women's reasons for buying trucks.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article in the latest Economist about this. Here's
a little of it:

As oil production slows,
prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new
technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil,
but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come."


----------------

$60/bbl for "decades to come"? How far from the wastebasket does one
need to stand to score 3 points with a paper wad?


According to his theory, $100/bbl will add a couple of more decades of
availability.

RCE

I don't know when that theory was expounded, but that $60/bbl oil
lasted maybe a few weeks or months. Certainly not "decades". We're
closing in on $80.


Chuck, the author was not claiming that a certain price would last for
decades. His point was that the higher the price, the longer remaining
oil supplies will last.

RCE


That would depend on what percentage of drivers are actually capable of
driving less, don't you think? I mean, if you MUST get to work, and you've
already trimmed your other driving as much as possible, whattya gonna do?

"RCE" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...



I understand Viagra is suspected of causing eye problems. I guess the
truck is safer in that regard.


Nope. I've never been a "keep up with the Jone's" kind of guy.

RCE


Go help JimH for a few minutes. I can't take it any more. He's got himself
all tangled up over my comment about why women buy SUVs. :-)