|
More gas on gas
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:51:05 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . Doug, I'm back from the airport, the kids are tucked in and sleeping like logs, and I'm confused. When did he become MY president? Is what we have here, a failure to communicate? That's been Doug's banner for years. He uses it to sucker folks into political flaming wars along with Harry. Most of us are learning better. John H John, do you have a refrigerator in your kitchen? Is it yours, or mine? Doug, this is just for you. I will break my fast (of political discussion) this one time: Okay, here's the plan: Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men. Allow those women who want t o marry women, marry women. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies. In three generations, there will be NO Democrats!!! Damn, I love it when a plan comes together! Now, go over here and make a donation to something worthwhile! http://www.active.com/donate/varace4cure/JohnHerring -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "RG" wrote in message m... Get it still, you don't. Trying to accomplish this change through governmental taxation will only result in animosity and non-compliance. Not to mention the fact that you'd never get Congress to agree on an approach. Accomplishing it through a high cost of ownership due to high fuel bills and wicked depreciation will happen with Congress doing what it does best...nothing. The market always works...eventually. Trust the force, Luke. What do you do about the terminally stupid who can't understand cause and effect? Well eventually, the terminally part of your description will become operative. In the meantime, let them pay through the nose. But when it costs $200 to fill up the tank of their truck, do you really think even the dimmest bulb won't get a clue? That level of witlessness is not typically found in the company of unlimited financial resources. Meanwhile, they're part of a problem that this country MUST deal with. That's why I see nothing wrong with gently leading them by the nose. Gently leading too many people by the nose will only get you a handful of snot. RCE |
Peak Oil - counterargument
Gently leading too many people by the nose will only get you a handful of
snot. At this point, one can only wonder what the BTU rating of refined snot might be. Is it possible we could sneeze our way to energy independence? |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "RCE" wrote in message ... Y'all ain't gittin my truck, even if'in i hafta learn how to load the bullits in my shotgun and carry it ona rack in the rear window! RCE That is, of course, unless you make me an offer I can't refuse. RCE I made you a sincere offer. Cash. You forgot to read the "can't refuse" part. Besides, what's a guy like you, at your age, going to do with a big, black Harley-Davidson edition F-350 Powerstroke diesel? Come to think of it ...... what the heck is a guy like me, at my age, going to do with a big, black Harley-Davidson edition F-350 Powerstroke diesel? RCE RCE |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Black Dog" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: Yes, common sense. If hybrids and being politically correct floats your boat, do so without preaching. If an Escalade floats your boat, do so, responsibly. The same applies for everything in between. RCE Yes exactly. Funny you should use the phrase "float your boat". My boat wouldn't get very far from driveway without the help of our Ford Explorer. The KIA Rio that I run to work and back everyday sure don't cut it in the trailering department. I realize that some people cannot afford two vehicles. If we had to give up one, despite gas prices, despite the "environment", it would probably be the Rio. The SUV is just too useful. Fine, but you're not typical of the vast majority of truck owners. You actually have a need for a towing vehicle. Heh, heh .... I've heard the question on occasion, "What the heck do you need a truck like that for?" (not knowing that I originally bought it to tow a fifth wheel camper, now sold) Next thing you know the same person is calling you on Saturday morning wondering if they can borrow your truck for an hour or so to pick up something at the Home Depot. Or (if I am not doing anything) to launch their boat. RCE |
Peak Oil - counterargument
Come to think of it ...... what the heck is a guy like me, at my age, going to do with a big, black Harley-Davidson edition F-350 Powerstroke diesel? It would appear to use it to capture and drag yet another gas eating monster back to your lair, to add to your army of evil minions. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"RCE" wrote in message ... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... RCE wrote: "RCE" wrote in message ... Y'all ain't gittin my truck, even if'in i hafta learn how to load the bullits in my shotgun and carry it ona rack in the rear window! RCE That is, of course, unless you make me an offer I can't refuse. RCE I made you a sincere offer. Cash. You forgot to read the "can't refuse" part. Besides, what's a guy like you, at your age, going to do with a big, black Harley-Davidson edition F-350 Powerstroke diesel? Come to think of it ...... what the heck is a guy like me, at my age, going to do with a big, black Harley-Davidson edition F-350 Powerstroke diesel? RCE RCE I understand Viagra is suspected of causing eye problems. I guess the truck is safer in that regard. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"tillius" wrote in message
ups.com... JimH wrote: The bottom line is that it remains all about choice....and choice is good. For you it also remains 'do as I say but not as I do' your rules apply to everyone but you. Actually, no. I want people to more closely examine their choices, instead of buying what they're told to buy by the car companies. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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? |
Peak Oil - counterargument
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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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. ;-) |
Peak Oil - counterargument
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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
" 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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
" 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. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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? |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"RCE" wrote in message ... "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. :-) |
Peak Oil - counterargument
" 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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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? |
Peak Oil - counterargument
" 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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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. ;-) |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... "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. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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............. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... "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 |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"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? |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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? I have to admit, a Hummer is where I draw the line. I support everyone's freedom of choice to buy what excites them, but for the life of me I don't understand the fascination with a 1500 GM pickup truck chassis and a military, "Terminator" sheet metal body. Reminds me of those toys the kids play with --- "Transformers" or something like that .... the ones that you pull on the doors or whatever and it turns into a Robot. RCE |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. It's not unique to Detroit. I like the one for a Saab or Volvo or Audi or whatever it was (see how effective the ad was?) that shows the car driving up a ski jump. RCE |
Peak Oil - counterargument
"RCE" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "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. It's not unique to Detroit. I like the one for a Saab or Volvo or Audi or whatever it was (see how effective the ad was?) that shows the car driving up a ski jump. RCE Right. Well, what percentage of male SUV owners use them to ford streams? :-) And, who's going to venture out on an unplowed road with 3 feet of snow, other than plow drivers? But, people eat that up. |
Peak Oil - counterargument
RCE wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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? I have to admit, a Hummer is where I draw the line. I support everyone's freedom of choice to buy what excites them, but for the life of me I don't understand the fascination with a 1500 GM pickup truck chassis and a military, "Terminator" sheet metal body. Reminds me of those toys the kids play with --- "Transformers" or something like that .... the ones that you pull on the doors or whatever and it turns into a Robot. RCE I agree, aside from being butt ugly, they are too wide and unmaneuverable for todays parking lots and streets. I watched some fool with his penis, I mean Hummer trying to park at an office complex. He was there when I got there, I parked, got my briefcase out of the back, while talking on my cell phone, and he was still parking when I went in! |
More gas on gas
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bryan" wrote in message . com... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bryan" wrote in message . net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Bryan" wrote in message . net... "tillius" wrote in message oups.com... JohnH wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:01:23 -0400, Harry Krause wrote more political bull**** which was deleted: You're trying, Harry. Hopefully enough folks will realize just what you're trying to do. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** Don't worry. Enough folks already know what Harry and the rest of you socialist Demoncraps are trying to do. Till Till, I've been a republican, a democrat, a libertarian, and an independent. I vote the issue and the man, not the party. Please leave the name calling for another group. "I'm a WAR president!" LOL! Thanks, you're sending me to the airport with a smile on my face. I didn't want to call him any more names tonight. So, I thought I'd just remind you in an indirect way that your president was a lete ------- -----. Doug, I'm back from the airport, the kids are tucked in and sleeping like logs, and I'm confused. When did he become MY president? Is what we have here, a failure to communicate? Did you vote for him? Does not matter who you or anyone else voted for. You got Bush as your President, if you are a USA citizen! |
Peak Oil - counterargument
On 24 Apr 2006 15:45:22 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:
RCE wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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? I have to admit, a Hummer is where I draw the line. I support everyone's freedom of choice to buy what excites them, but for the life of me I don't understand the fascination with a 1500 GM pickup truck chassis and a military, "Terminator" sheet metal body. Reminds me of those toys the kids play with --- "Transformers" or something like that .... the ones that you pull on the doors or whatever and it turns into a Robot. RCE I agree, aside from being butt ugly, they are too wide and unmaneuverable for todays parking lots and streets. I watched some fool with his penis, I mean Hummer trying to park at an office complex. He was there when I got there, I parked, got my briefcase out of the back, while talking on my cell phone, and he was still parking when I went in! Yeah, but weren't all the girls standing around his Hummer, just waiting for him to get out so they could ogle his manliness? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
More gas on gas
"While the oil companies deny any manipulation, public confidence was eroded
at the recent report that exiting Exxon Mobil executive Lee Raymond was getting a 400 million dollar retirement package." |
Peak Oil - counterargument
On 25 Apr 2006 06:26:17 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:
JohnH wrote: On 24 Apr 2006 15:45:22 -0700, "basskisser" wrote: RCE wrote: "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... 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? I have to admit, a Hummer is where I draw the line. I support everyone's freedom of choice to buy what excites them, but for the life of me I don't understand the fascination with a 1500 GM pickup truck chassis and a military, "Terminator" sheet metal body. Reminds me of those toys the kids play with --- "Transformers" or something like that .... the ones that you pull on the doors or whatever and it turns into a Robot. RCE I agree, aside from being butt ugly, they are too wide and unmaneuverable for todays parking lots and streets. I watched some fool with his penis, I mean Hummer trying to park at an office complex. He was there when I got there, I parked, got my briefcase out of the back, while talking on my cell phone, and he was still parking when I went in! Yeah, but weren't all the girls standing around his Hummer, just waiting for him to get out so they could ogle his manliness? -- 'Til next time, John H Uh, yeah...sure..... He probably doesn't have much in the pants to ogle....hence the Hummer! Amen! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
More gas on gas
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:41:09 GMT, Ignatius Thistlewhite
wrote: You wrote: "While the oil companies deny any manipulation, public confidence was eroded at the recent report that exiting Exxon Mobil executive Lee Raymond was getting a 400 million dollar retirement package." If you do not like the fact that ExxonMobil used part of its 9 cents per gallon profit to compensate a retiring executive, patronize another supplier of the company's products. If you do not like the fact that government taxes account for 40 cents per gallon, well, there's nothing you can do about that. From where comes the 9 cents a gallon figure and the 49 cents a gallon figure? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Peak Oil - counterargument
Doug Kanter wrote:
I drive a 6-cylinder Totota pickup, about 30 miles per week. My ex drives a Subaru 4-cylinder. I drive a Ford Excursion V10 (gas). When I'm driving it, I think of Douglas Kanter, and all the fuel he is saving with his vehicles so I can have enough fuel for my huge vehicle. Tick tock, tick tock... |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com