" 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 am afraid it will only serve to support Doug's position. Ford obviously
targeted the Lincoln pickup towards women, IMO.

RCE

"tillius" wrote in message
oups.com...

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


How about this: "I own a Hummer just because I can." Does that strike you
as a good idea, since this country really does need to lower its demand for
oil? Or, is this not your country?

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


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. ;-)



You tell her. Them's fight'n words.

RCE

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

" 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. ;-)


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.


Your defect is that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

You are a great comedian though. Thanks for the chuckles today. ;-)

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" 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 am afraid it will only serve to support Doug's position. Ford obviously
targeted the Lincoln pickup towards women, IMO.

RCE


There have been ads from several manufacturers which, instead of the macho
music and guys driving through rocky streams, there's a mom gently putting
seat belts on the kiddies la la la. They're still pitching the safety
concept. There was one from Ford which showed a lady driving an Explorer on
an unplowed highway it what looked like 3 feet of snow. THAT is what I
meant. Neither type of commercial conveys an accurate message, really.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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. :-)


No help needed on my end Mr. Chauvenist. Reread this thread if you need to
see who is the one who needs help.

"RCE" wrote in message
...

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


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. ;-)



You tell her. Them's fight'n words.

RCE


Not me. Let's get Dougy to do it. After all, those were his thoughts

Oh Douglas...........I have a chore for you.............

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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?


Move to where your work is?

I don't know. I remember many years ago when we were first married and I
was in the Navy, I could barely afford to buy enough gas every week to get
to work. No shortages, I just simply could not afford rent, food, baby
supplies and gas for the car on Navy pay. I worked part time at a garage on
weekends for gas money, but finally parked the car for all but absolutely
necessary travel and bought a Honda 305 Super Hawk motorcycle to get to
work. Ever try riding a motorcycle in 12 inches of snow in subfreezing
weather?

RCE

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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. :-)


There is no helping Jim. He has to sort this out by himself.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"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?


Move to where your work is?

Not possible for many people. No housing near work. Ever seen the endless
miles of industrial development in places like New Jersey & Long Island?