FLM films - My Webpage

2003-01-09 06:21:17-08:00 - OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School of Social Hypocrisy.

2003-01-09 06:21:17-08:00 - OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School of Social Hypocrisy.

2003-01-09 10:10:33-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu>)


BTR1701 wrote: > > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > of Social Hypocrisy. Right, because it's not hypocritical to equate drug use with supporting terrorism except for when it's you or your family.

2003-01-09 10:10:33-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu>)


BTR1701 wrote: > > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > of Social Hypocrisy. Right, because it's not hypocritical to equate drug use with supporting terrorism except for when it's you or your family.

2003-01-09 11:54:12-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > of Social Hypocrisy. Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports terrorism" ads. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-09 11:54:12-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > of Social Hypocrisy. Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports terrorism" ads. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-09 13:38:07+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > of Social Hypocrisy. BTR, BTR, BTR! Why do love terrorism so much? -- Ken from Chicago (who only drives a sedan, 96 Pontiac Bonneville)

2003-01-09 13:38:07+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > of Social Hypocrisy. BTR, BTR, BTR! Why do love terrorism so much? -- Ken from Chicago (who only drives a sedan, 96 Pontiac Bonneville)

2003-01-09 13:49:21-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 9 Jan 2003 11:54:12 -0600, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: >In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 ><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> of Social Hypocrisy. > >Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports >terrorism" ads. Could be. But I doubt they are that clever. Anyway, the first thing I think of when I see those doing drugs=terrorism ads is that they are making a pretty good argument for buying homegrown. ___________________________ ... just more than contended to be living and dying in three-quarter time

2003-01-09 13:49:21-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On 9 Jan 2003 11:54:12 -0600, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: >In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 ><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> of Social Hypocrisy. > >Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports >terrorism" ads. Could be. But I doubt they are that clever. Anyway, the first thing I think of when I see those doing drugs=terrorism ads is that they are making a pretty good argument for buying homegrown. ___________________________ ... just more than contended to be living and dying in three-quarter time

2003-01-09 16:23:08+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (mst3kvsscifi@aol.comnojunk)


Well consider Ariana Huffington, she swerves her "views" more than anyone I've ever seen. Nothing but a chameleon. "With this new digital technology, the suckiness comes through with great clarity." Mike MST3k

2003-01-09 16:23:08+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (mst3kvsscifi@aol.comnojunk)


Well consider Ariana Huffington, she swerves her "views" more than anyone I've ever seen. Nothing but a chameleon. "With this new digital technology, the suckiness comes through with great clarity." Mike MST3k

2003-01-09 17:25:57-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1DFE79.5080408@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article > > <ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > > Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote in message ... > > > > > >>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>> > >>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>> > >>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>garage. > >>> > >>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > > > > > Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > > garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > > more gas than my one SUV. > > > > You fantastic moron. > > Yeah, but it's unlikely that he drives more than one car at a time. So, > over all, HE's probably using less gas than you, unless he drives A LOT. Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own SUV is on the weekends. As for the rest, if you broke down my energy usage into units of barrels of oil per day, I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that mine is SIGNIFICANTLY less than a Hollywood TV mogul who lives on a 10-acre Malibu estate and has 21 motor vehicles.

2003-01-09 17:25:57-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1DFE79.5080408@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article > > <ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > > Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote in message ... > > > > > >>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>> > >>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>> > >>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>garage. > >>> > >>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > > > > > Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > > garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > > more gas than my one SUV. > > > > You fantastic moron. > > Yeah, but it's unlikely that he drives more than one car at a time. So, > over all, HE's probably using less gas than you, unless he drives A LOT. Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own SUV is on the weekends. As for the rest, if you broke down my energy usage into units of barrels of oil per day, I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that mine is SIGNIFICANTLY less than a Hollywood TV mogul who lives on a 10-acre Malibu estate and has 21 motor vehicles.

2003-01-09 17:32:28-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > of Social Hypocrisy. > > That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY > public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > least those who live in cities. > > I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > > Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > valid. Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just like everyone else. So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on his talk show, guess what he did? "I gotta go to commercial."

2003-01-09 17:32:28-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > of Social Hypocrisy. > > That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY > public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > least those who live in cities. > > I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > > Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > valid. Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just like everyone else. So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on his talk show, guess what he did? "I gotta go to commercial."

2003-01-09 18:04:42-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com)


Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what ma I missing?

2003-01-09 18:04:42-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com)


Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what ma I missing?

2003-01-09 18:05:20+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (John Singleton <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net>)


Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. Until Mideast countries start manufacturing luxury cars, someone may own as many as they want without supporting Islam-fueled terrorism. Even sports cars are designed to get better gas milage than SUVs. These commercials are certainly more realistic than the NEA's drug money-goes-to-terrorist ads, which they were modeled after. BTR1701 wrote in message ... >Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers >Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > >He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >of Social Hypocrisy.

2003-01-09 18:05:20+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (John Singleton <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net>)


Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. Until Mideast countries start manufacturing luxury cars, someone may own as many as they want without supporting Islam-fueled terrorism. Even sports cars are designed to get better gas milage than SUVs. These commercials are certainly more realistic than the NEA's drug money-goes-to-terrorist ads, which they were modeled after. BTR1701 wrote in message ... >Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers >Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > >He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >of Social Hypocrisy.

2003-01-09 18:33:48-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1DFE79.5080408@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>In article >>><ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John >>>Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>BTR1701 wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>>>> >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>>>> >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >>>>>garage. >>>>> >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. >>>> > >>>>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. >>> >>> >>>Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car >>>garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot >>>more gas than my one SUV. >>> >>>You fantastic moron. >> >>Yeah, but it's unlikely that he drives more than one car at a time. So, >>over all, HE's probably using less gas than you, unless he drives A LOT. > > > Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 > and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own > SUV is on the weekends. > > As for the rest, if you broke down my energy usage into units of barrels > of oil per day, I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that mine is > SIGNIFICANTLY less than a Hollywood TV mogul who lives on a 10-acre > Malibu estate and has 21 motor vehicles. It doesn't matter how many cars he HAS - he's only driving one at a time. You might be trying to say his "staff" or whatever is using the other cars, but chances are, they'd still have jobs that required some oil consumption if they didn't work for him. Maintaining a 10-acre estate might use more oil than the average person, but 10-acres really isn't THAT much. IF Norman is driving, he is driving ONE car at a time. And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading?

2003-01-09 18:33:48-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1DFE79.5080408@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>In article >>><ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John >>>Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>BTR1701 wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>>>> >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>>>> >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >>>>>garage. >>>>> >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. >>>> > >>>>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. >>> >>> >>>Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car >>>garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot >>>more gas than my one SUV. >>> >>>You fantastic moron. >> >>Yeah, but it's unlikely that he drives more than one car at a time. So, >>over all, HE's probably using less gas than you, unless he drives A LOT. > > > Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 > and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own > SUV is on the weekends. > > As for the rest, if you broke down my energy usage into units of barrels > of oil per day, I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that mine is > SIGNIFICANTLY less than a Hollywood TV mogul who lives on a 10-acre > Malibu estate and has 21 motor vehicles. It doesn't matter how many cars he HAS - he's only driving one at a time. You might be trying to say his "staff" or whatever is using the other cars, but chances are, they'd still have jobs that required some oil consumption if they didn't work for him. Maintaining a 10-acre estate might use more oil than the average person, but 10-acres really isn't THAT much. IF Norman is driving, he is driving ONE car at a time. And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading?

2003-01-09 18:39:23-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E06DC.2070107@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1DFE79.5080408@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article > >>><ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > >>>Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>BTR1701 wrote in message ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>>>> > >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>>>garage. > >>>>> > >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>>> > > > >>>>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > >>> > >>> > >>>Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > >>>garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > >>>more gas than my one SUV. > >>> > >>>You fantastic moron. > >> > >>Yeah, but it's unlikely that he drives more than one car at a time. > >>So, over all, HE's probably using less gas than you, unless he drives A > >>LOT. > > > > > > Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 > > and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my > > own SUV is on the weekends. > > > > As for the rest, if you broke down my energy usage into units of > > barrels of oil per day, I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that mine is > > SIGNIFICANTLY less than a Hollywood TV mogul who lives on a 10-acre > > Malibu estate and has 21 motor vehicles. > > It doesn't matter how many cars he HAS - he's only driving one at a > time. He has a damn 10-acre estate in Malibu!!!! How much energy do you think he uses compared to my own little house. Sheesh. How hard is this to understand? You might be trying to say his "staff" or whatever is using the > other cars, but chances are, they'd still have jobs that required some > oil consumption if they didn't work for him. Maintaining a 10-acre > estate might use more oil than the average person, but 10-acres really > isn't THAT much. It is when there's a goddamn mansion on it. It's not pastureland, you know. > And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? Actually, I do. But that's not the point of my SUV. I frequently have to carry a lot of stuff. I'm in law enforcement and I'm the firearms instructor for our office and I frequently have to transport large amounts of guns, ammunition, etc. But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of need to anyone.

2003-01-09 18:39:23-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E06DC.2070107@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1DFE79.5080408@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article > >>><ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > >>>Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>BTR1701 wrote in message ... > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>>>> > >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>>>garage. > >>>>> > >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>>> > > > >>>>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > >>> > >>> > >>>Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > >>>garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > >>>more gas than my one SUV. > >>> > >>>You fantastic moron. > >> > >>Yeah, but it's unlikely that he drives more than one car at a time. > >>So, over all, HE's probably using less gas than you, unless he drives A > >>LOT. > > > > > > Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 > > and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my > > own SUV is on the weekends. > > > > As for the rest, if you broke down my energy usage into units of > > barrels of oil per day, I'm willing to bet a huge amount of money that mine is > > SIGNIFICANTLY less than a Hollywood TV mogul who lives on a 10-acre > > Malibu estate and has 21 motor vehicles. > > It doesn't matter how many cars he HAS - he's only driving one at a > time. He has a damn 10-acre estate in Malibu!!!! How much energy do you think he uses compared to my own little house. Sheesh. How hard is this to understand? You might be trying to say his "staff" or whatever is using the > other cars, but chances are, they'd still have jobs that required some > oil consumption if they didn't work for him. Maintaining a 10-acre > estate might use more oil than the average person, but 10-acres really > isn't THAT much. It is when there's a goddamn mansion on it. It's not pastureland, you know. > And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? Actually, I do. But that's not the point of my SUV. I frequently have to carry a lot of stuff. I'm in law enforcement and I'm the firearms instructor for our office and I frequently have to transport large amounts of guns, ammunition, etc. But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of need to anyone.

2003-01-09 19:22:53-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > And while I don't expect junkies to >get off smack to be patriotic I can see people buying more >fuel-efficient... Personally i'll keep driving my gas guzzler. Several years ago I was driving on the expressway when I got rear ended by a truck. If I wasn't driving a huge Mercury Grand Marquis at the time I would be dead now. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:22:53-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > And while I don't expect junkies to >get off smack to be patriotic I can see people buying more >fuel-efficient... Personally i'll keep driving my gas guzzler. Several years ago I was driving on the expressway when I got rear ended by a truck. If I wasn't driving a huge Mercury Grand Marquis at the time I would be dead now. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:27:13-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >least those who live in cities. I'll take public transportation when it actually works. I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get there by public transportation. (And that assumes it doesn't break down which it does very often). ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:27:13-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >least those who live in cities. I'll take public transportation when it actually works. I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get there by public transportation. (And that assumes it doesn't break down which it does very often). ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:31:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just >like everyone else. How much does someone spend to heat a house in Hollywood? I'm not sure but I guess it is alot less than what I spend here in Massachusetts where for the next few days the temperature will get down to around 10 degrees.n ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:31:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just >like everyone else. How much does someone spend to heat a house in Hollywood? I'm not sure but I guess it is alot less than what I spend here in Massachusetts where for the next few days the temperature will get down to around 10 degrees.n ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:34:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on >his talk show, guess what he did? Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? There are homes that are designed such that they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? There are some people around here in Vermont/New Hampshire that have homes that essentially need no energy to heat and cool. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:34:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on >his talk show, guess what he did? Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? There are homes that are designed such that they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? There are some people around here in Vermont/New Hampshire that have homes that essentially need no energy to heat and cool. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:39:41-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 >and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own >SUV is on the weekends. Been there, done that. I used to ride a bike everywhere years ago. I won't do it anymore. Between potholes, drivers who take joy in hitting bicyles, etc. I wouldn't do it anymore. There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:39:41-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 >and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own >SUV is on the weekends. Been there, done that. I used to ride a bike everywhere years ago. I won't do it anymore. Between potholes, drivers who take joy in hitting bicyles, etc. I wouldn't do it anymore. There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:42:05-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when I was rear ended. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:42:05-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when I was rear ended. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-09 19:53:21-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <BTR1702-412BF2.16542009012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article > <ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > BTR1701 wrote in message ... > > > >Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > > >I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > > >Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > > >Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > >tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > >while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > > > > >He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > >of Social Hypocrisy. > > > Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > more gas than my one SUV. > > You fantastic moron. But he only drives one at a time. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-09 19:53:21-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <BTR1702-412BF2.16542009012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article > <ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > BTR1701 wrote in message ... > > > >Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > > >I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > > >Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > > >Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > >tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > >while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > > > > >He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > >of Social Hypocrisy. > > > Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > more gas than my one SUV. > > You fantastic moron. But he only drives one at a time. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-09 19:54:47-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > > valid. > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. Truth is truth, regardless of who is speaking. > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles.

2003-01-09 19:54:47-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > > valid. > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. Truth is truth, regardless of who is speaking. > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles.

2003-01-09 20:01:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > > >>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>> >>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>> >>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >>> >>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >>>of Social Hypocrisy. >> >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. >> >>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >> >>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >>valid. > > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit.

2003-01-09 20:01:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > > >>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>> >>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>> >>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >>> >>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >>>of Social Hypocrisy. >> >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. >> >>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >> >>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >>valid. > > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit.

2003-01-09 20:12:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Willow Rosenberg wrote: > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > doesn't break down which it does very often). It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for yourself or the right thing for everyone. When ever I move (on average, once a year I change cities because of my job) I make SURE I am moving some place I can access easy, reliable public transportation. I currently live 2 blocks from a commuter train station and 4 blocks from a trolley. Trolley takes me to the grocery store and other errands as quickly as driving and looking for parking would, and the commuter train gets me with in 6 blocks of my work, on average faster than it would be driving through rush-hour. People from my work are always saying things like that to me "I'd take the train if I could but it would take me so long, I'd have to change trains, etc" - maybe they should have thought of that when they were looking for a house/apartment. (We all move frequently in this company) Public transportation works - it's better for you (saves money, cuts down on parking hassle which is a huge deal in most of the cities I've lived in, etc.) and the environment, not to mention our constant oil issues. Public transportation isn't going to get any better as long as people don't use it enough and force the people controlling it to make it better.

2003-01-09 20:12:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Willow Rosenberg wrote: > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > doesn't break down which it does very often). It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for yourself or the right thing for everyone. When ever I move (on average, once a year I change cities because of my job) I make SURE I am moving some place I can access easy, reliable public transportation. I currently live 2 blocks from a commuter train station and 4 blocks from a trolley. Trolley takes me to the grocery store and other errands as quickly as driving and looking for parking would, and the commuter train gets me with in 6 blocks of my work, on average faster than it would be driving through rush-hour. People from my work are always saying things like that to me "I'd take the train if I could but it would take me so long, I'd have to change trains, etc" - maybe they should have thought of that when they were looking for a house/apartment. (We all move frequently in this company) Public transportation works - it's better for you (saves money, cuts down on parking hassle which is a huge deal in most of the cities I've lived in, etc.) and the environment, not to mention our constant oil issues. Public transportation isn't going to get any better as long as people don't use it enough and force the people controlling it to make it better.

2003-01-09 20:12:12-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what > ma I missing? The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by trafficing in drugs. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-09 20:12:12-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what > ma I missing? The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by trafficing in drugs. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-09 21:43:36+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <q8kr1vk8lglbvjnt7v4ngcoh2gj5a0qhg7@4ax.com>, "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Jan 2003 11:54:12 -0600, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > >In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > ><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > >> > >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > >> of Social Hypocrisy. > > > >Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > >terrorism" ads. > > > Could be. But I doubt they are that clever. > > Anyway, the first thing I think of when I see those doing > drugs=terrorism ads is that they are making a pretty good argument for > buying homegrown. Too true. However, I do see a connection to the heroin, diamond, oil connection with terrorism. During WWII there were a lot of great propaganda posters along the lines of "If you drive alone you drive with Hilter" that really showed to the American people how their decesions can have a real effect on the war effort. Yes, I realize that most Victory gardens and recycle programs were in place just to give the people the feeling they were doing something but a little can go a long way if enough people participate. And while I don't expect junkies to get off smack to be patriotic I can see people buying more fuel-efficient... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-09 21:43:36+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <q8kr1vk8lglbvjnt7v4ngcoh2gj5a0qhg7@4ax.com>, "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Jan 2003 11:54:12 -0600, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > >In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > ><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > >> > >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > >> of Social Hypocrisy. > > > >Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > >terrorism" ads. > > > Could be. But I doubt they are that clever. > > Anyway, the first thing I think of when I see those doing > drugs=terrorism ads is that they are making a pretty good argument for > buying homegrown. Too true. However, I do see a connection to the heroin, diamond, oil connection with terrorism. During WWII there were a lot of great propaganda posters along the lines of "If you drive alone you drive with Hilter" that really showed to the American people how their decesions can have a real effect on the war effort. Yes, I realize that most Victory gardens and recycle programs were in place just to give the people the feeling they were doing something but a little can go a long way if enough people participate. And while I don't expect junkies to get off smack to be patriotic I can see people buying more fuel-efficient... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-09 21:53:32-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >need to anyone. Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is going to tell me what I can drive. Period. Stimpson

2003-01-09 21:53:32-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >need to anyone. Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is going to tell me what I can drive. Period. Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:07:27-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:03:08 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >least those who live in cities. > I thought the "drugs support terrorism" campaign was stupid. And i suppose, the purchasing of fuel, which comes from crude in many terrorist harboring nations, could be construed as supporting terrorism without too much of a leap. However, you support it every bit as much with your car as you do with an SUV. You support it with your lawnmower as well. You support it when riding a bus that uses deisel. You support it when you purchase an airline ticket. And on and on... It is stupid to single out SUV's. The craze against SUV's is just a recnt PC trend. Nothing more. The people speaking against them are just the same old tired bunch of radical lefty nutcases. btw - I take public transit often as well. But outside of cities like Chicago and NY, I think the transit systems suck for the most part. I can get anywhere by L, bus, and/or foot in Chicago more conveniently than I can in my car. I used to live in OKC though, and good freakin luck! Public transit is horrible/non-existent!! Regards, Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:07:27-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:03:08 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >least those who live in cities. > I thought the "drugs support terrorism" campaign was stupid. And i suppose, the purchasing of fuel, which comes from crude in many terrorist harboring nations, could be construed as supporting terrorism without too much of a leap. However, you support it every bit as much with your car as you do with an SUV. You support it with your lawnmower as well. You support it when riding a bus that uses deisel. You support it when you purchase an airline ticket. And on and on... It is stupid to single out SUV's. The craze against SUV's is just a recnt PC trend. Nothing more. The people speaking against them are just the same old tired bunch of radical lefty nutcases. btw - I take public transit often as well. But outside of cities like Chicago and NY, I think the transit systems suck for the most part. I can get anywhere by L, bus, and/or foot in Chicago more conveniently than I can in my car. I used to live in OKC though, and good freakin luck! Public transit is horrible/non-existent!! Regards, Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:14:04-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E1DE1.4060407@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > Willow Rosenberg wrote: > > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>least those who live in cities. > > > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > doesn't break down which it does very often). > > It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for > yourself or the right thing for everyone. And who decides what is right? You?

2003-01-09 22:14:04-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E1DE1.4060407@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > Willow Rosenberg wrote: > > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>least those who live in cities. > > > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > doesn't break down which it does very often). > > It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for > yourself or the right thing for everyone. And who decides what is right? You?

2003-01-09 22:14:40-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:01:26 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. >People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no >offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they >are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, >doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. Conversely, it does not mean that their message IS legit, either. I listen to people I know and trust. Another Hollywood moron preaching to me about what a terrible person I am, and telling me what I need to do, is not going to sway me. Never has. Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:14:40-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:01:26 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. >People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no >offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they >are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, >doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. Conversely, it does not mean that their message IS legit, either. I listen to people I know and trust. Another Hollywood moron preaching to me about what a terrible person I am, and telling me what I need to do, is not going to sway me. Never has. Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:15:25-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > >>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>> > >>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>> > >>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>garage. > >>> > >>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>least those who live in cities. > >> > >>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> > >>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >>valid. > > > > > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > > these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > > multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > > my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > > Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. > People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no > offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they > are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, > doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy.

2003-01-09 22:15:25-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > >>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>> > >>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>> > >>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>garage. > >>> > >>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>least those who live in cities. > >> > >>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> > >>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >>valid. > > > > > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > > these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > > multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > > my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > > Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. > People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no > offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they > are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, > doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy.

2003-01-09 22:15:48-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > > > valid. > > > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. > > Truth is truth, regardless of who is speaking. > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay Leno's > collection of cars and motorcycles. And you know this how?

2003-01-09 22:15:48-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > > > valid. > > > > Not if it comes from them, it's not. > > Truth is truth, regardless of who is speaking. > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay Leno's > collection of cars and motorcycles. And you know this how?

2003-01-09 22:16:20-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 9 Jan 2003 18:04:42 -0800, DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: >Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > >You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > >You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. >Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > >I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what >ma I missing? You're not missing anything. The commercials were stupid. btw - I am SHUDDERING in HORROR at the realization that I actually agree with you. Regards, Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:16:20-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 9 Jan 2003 18:04:42 -0800, DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: >Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > >You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > >You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. >Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > >I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what >ma I missing? You're not missing anything. The commercials were stupid. btw - I am SHUDDERING in HORROR at the realization that I actually agree with you. Regards, Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:18:18-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > >his talk show, guess what he did? > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > There are homes that are designed such that > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it looks just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every else's energy habits. His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago.

2003-01-09 22:18:18-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > >his talk show, guess what he did? > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > There are homes that are designed such that > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it looks just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every else's energy habits. His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago.

2003-01-09 22:19:25-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <ot4s1vs5b9bf1hh0tjof8l1bmt9qc86s1p@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >like everyone else. > How much does someone spend to heat a house in Hollywood? Probably about as much per square foot as I spend to heat mine in South Texas.

2003-01-09 22:19:25-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <ot4s1vs5b9bf1hh0tjof8l1bmt9qc86s1p@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >like everyone else. > How much does someone spend to heat a house in Hollywood? Probably about as much per square foot as I spend to heat mine in South Texas.

2003-01-09 22:20:36-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <Xns92FED157D79Cdansoloattbi@63.240.76.16>, Dan Solomon <dansolo@attbi.com> wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in > news:BTR1702-420569.16545309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > > > In article <3E1D9EF9.96556F1E@uchicago.edu>, Jesse James Jensen > > <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > > > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my > >> > lifestyle while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its > >> > 21-car garage. > >> > > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> > School of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >> Right, because it's not hypocritical to equate drug use with > >> supporting terrorism except for when it's you or your family > > > > Who the hell is talking about drug use? I'm talking about the SUV ads. > > That is a reference to the Drugs support terrorism ad campaign, which > these ads mirror. The hypocrisy has to do with the history of drug use > in the Bush family. Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe to grind but that's not the issue here.

2003-01-09 22:20:36-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <Xns92FED157D79Cdansoloattbi@63.240.76.16>, Dan Solomon <dansolo@attbi.com> wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in > news:BTR1702-420569.16545309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > > > In article <3E1D9EF9.96556F1E@uchicago.edu>, Jesse James Jensen > > <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > > > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my > >> > lifestyle while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its > >> > 21-car garage. > >> > > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> > School of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >> Right, because it's not hypocritical to equate drug use with > >> supporting terrorism except for when it's you or your family > > > > Who the hell is talking about drug use? I'm talking about the SUV ads. > > That is a reference to the Drugs support terrorism ad campaign, which > these ads mirror. The hypocrisy has to do with the history of drug use > in the Bush family. Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe to grind but that's not the issue here.

2003-01-09 22:25:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <090120032051263053%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-412BF2.16542009012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > > Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > BTR1701 wrote in message ... > > > > > >Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > > > > >I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > > > >Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > > > > >Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > > >tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > > >while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > > > >garage. > > > > > > > >He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > > > >School of Social Hypocrisy. > > > > > Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > > > Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > > garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > > more gas than my one SUV. > > > > You fantastic moron. > > But he only drives one at a time. Assuming he's the only one driving them. And the high-intensity halogen lights that light up his rooftop tennis court every night (and piss off all the other residents in the canyon), they alone probably use more electricity than my house does in a month. We can quibble all night about the details but no one has yet put forth a compelling argument that Norman Lear, multi-millionaire TV mogul, with his sprawling Malibu compound, uses as much (or less) energy than the average American who drives an SUV. And Ariana Huffington, who authored these ads, freely admits to using private jets to bop around the country. I wonder how much fuel one of those jet trips uses compared to my SUV?

2003-01-09 22:25:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <090120032051263053%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-412BF2.16542009012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > In article > > <ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John > > Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > > > > BTR1701 wrote in message ... > > > > > >Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > > > > >I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > > > >Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > > > > >Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > > >tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > > >while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > > > >garage. > > > > > > > >He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > > > >School of Social Hypocrisy. > > > > > Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > > > Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > > garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > > more gas than my one SUV. > > > > You fantastic moron. > > But he only drives one at a time. Assuming he's the only one driving them. And the high-intensity halogen lights that light up his rooftop tennis court every night (and piss off all the other residents in the canyon), they alone probably use more electricity than my house does in a month. We can quibble all night about the details but no one has yet put forth a compelling argument that Norman Lear, multi-millionaire TV mogul, with his sprawling Malibu compound, uses as much (or less) energy than the average American who drives an SUV. And Ariana Huffington, who authored these ads, freely admits to using private jets to bop around the country. I wonder how much fuel one of those jet trips uses compared to my SUV?

2003-01-09 22:26:33-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <090120032109127021%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw > <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > > > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. > > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > > > > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs > > what > > ma I missing? > > The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by > trafficing in drugs. As someone else pointed out, those ads doing nothing so much as make an argument for growing your own pot at home.

2003-01-09 22:26:33-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <090120032109127021%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw > <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > > > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. > > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > > > > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs > > what > > ma I missing? > > The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by > trafficing in drugs. As someone else pointed out, those ads doing nothing so much as make an argument for growing your own pot at home.

2003-01-09 22:27:23-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <pc5s1v0fnp57vc9oqvejog4gfq15kbl3a3@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 > >and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own > >SUV is on the weekends. > Been there, done that. I used to ride a bike everywhere > years ago. I won't do it anymore. > > Between potholes, drivers who take joy in hitting bicyles, > etc. I wouldn't do it anymore. > > There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, > Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). I just put mine in my office.

2003-01-09 22:27:23-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <pc5s1v0fnp57vc9oqvejog4gfq15kbl3a3@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Actually, considering I ride my bike to work at least 3 days out of 5 > >and drive a government sedan the other two, the only time I drive my own > >SUV is on the weekends. > Been there, done that. I used to ride a bike everywhere > years ago. I won't do it anymore. > > Between potholes, drivers who take joy in hitting bicyles, > etc. I wouldn't do it anymore. > > There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, > Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). I just put mine in my office.

2003-01-09 22:37:18-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:28:13 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >I don't have a car, pumpkin :) I did not mean YOU specifically. > > > You support it with >> your lawnmower as well. > >I don't have a lawnmower > Again, fine. But I'll bet alot of people who bash SUV's do. >> You support it when riding a bus that uses >> deisel. > >a bit, but I'm sharing the bus with a couple of dozen other people - and >if the US didn't have cars and only had busses, we could get by w/ our >own oil and non-OPEC oil > So you DO SUPPORT TERRORISM, just not quite as much. > >Besides the gas guzzling (which, BTW, SUVs aren't subject to the "gas >guzzler" tax, which pisses me off to no end) I don't like SUVs for alot >of reasons. Not the least of which is, very few people actually need >them. I've never met anyone who actually takes their off-road. That >BTR guy says he does, but I believe him to be an exception. You may not like them. Nobody says you have to. BUT... Those of us who DO like them will still drive them. And who are you to tell other people what they need? It's not your business. Also, I was not calling you a tired old lefty. You might very well be, but I was actually referring to the career activists types. Which again, you might be. I don't know. Reagrds, Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:37:18-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 23:28:13 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >I don't have a car, pumpkin :) I did not mean YOU specifically. > > > You support it with >> your lawnmower as well. > >I don't have a lawnmower > Again, fine. But I'll bet alot of people who bash SUV's do. >> You support it when riding a bus that uses >> deisel. > >a bit, but I'm sharing the bus with a couple of dozen other people - and >if the US didn't have cars and only had busses, we could get by w/ our >own oil and non-OPEC oil > So you DO SUPPORT TERRORISM, just not quite as much. > >Besides the gas guzzling (which, BTW, SUVs aren't subject to the "gas >guzzler" tax, which pisses me off to no end) I don't like SUVs for alot >of reasons. Not the least of which is, very few people actually need >them. I've never met anyone who actually takes their off-road. That >BTR guy says he does, but I believe him to be an exception. You may not like them. Nobody says you have to. BUT... Those of us who DO like them will still drive them. And who are you to tell other people what they need? It's not your business. Also, I was not calling you a tired old lefty. You might very well be, but I was actually referring to the career activists types. Which again, you might be. I don't know. Reagrds, Stimpson

2003-01-09 22:38:28-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E4BDD.60100@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > Besides the gas guzzling (which, BTW, SUVs aren't subject to the "gas > guzzler" tax, which pisses me off to no end) I don't like SUVs for alot > of reasons. Not the least of which is, very few people actually need > them. I've never met anyone who actually takes their off-road. That > BTR guy says he does, but I believe him to be an exception. You don't have to take one off-road to "need" them. They are great for hauling around large loads, etc. Besides, it's not for you or anyone else to decide what I should or shoudn't have based on whether I need it or not. I bet I could find all sorts of stuff you own that you don't technically need also...

2003-01-09 22:38:28-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1E4BDD.60100@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > Besides the gas guzzling (which, BTW, SUVs aren't subject to the "gas > guzzler" tax, which pisses me off to no end) I don't like SUVs for alot > of reasons. Not the least of which is, very few people actually need > them. I've never met anyone who actually takes their off-road. That > BTR guy says he does, but I believe him to be an exception. You don't have to take one off-road to "need" them. They are great for hauling around large loads, etc. Besides, it's not for you or anyone else to decide what I should or shoudn't have based on whether I need it or not. I bet I could find all sorts of stuff you own that you don't technically need also...

2003-01-09 23:28:13-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:03:08 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> > wrote: > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. >> > > I thought the "drugs support terrorism" campaign was stupid. And i > suppose, the purchasing of fuel, which comes from crude in many > terrorist harboring nations, could be construed as supporting > terrorism without too much of a leap. However, you support it every > bit as much with your car as you do with an SUV. I don't have a car, pumpkin :) > You support it with > your lawnmower as well. I don't have a lawnmower > You support it when riding a bus that uses > deisel. a bit, but I'm sharing the bus with a couple of dozen other people - and if the US didn't have cars and only had busses, we could get by w/ our own oil and non-OPEC oil > You support it when you purchase an airline ticket. And on and > on... It is stupid to single out SUV's. The craze against SUV's is > just a recnt PC trend. Nothing more. The people speaking against them > are just the same old tired bunch of radical lefty nutcases. Well, I've been called alot, but PC or "lefty" aren't any of the names usually hurled at me. ;) Besides the gas guzzling (which, BTW, SUVs aren't subject to the "gas guzzler" tax, which pisses me off to no end) I don't like SUVs for alot of reasons. Not the least of which is, very few people actually need them. I've never met anyone who actually takes their off-road. That BTR guy says he does, but I believe him to be an exception.

2003-01-09 23:28:13-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:03:08 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> > wrote: > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. >> > > I thought the "drugs support terrorism" campaign was stupid. And i > suppose, the purchasing of fuel, which comes from crude in many > terrorist harboring nations, could be construed as supporting > terrorism without too much of a leap. However, you support it every > bit as much with your car as you do with an SUV. I don't have a car, pumpkin :) > You support it with > your lawnmower as well. I don't have a lawnmower > You support it when riding a bus that uses > deisel. a bit, but I'm sharing the bus with a couple of dozen other people - and if the US didn't have cars and only had busses, we could get by w/ our own oil and non-OPEC oil > You support it when you purchase an airline ticket. And on and > on... It is stupid to single out SUV's. The craze against SUV's is > just a recnt PC trend. Nothing more. The people speaking against them > are just the same old tired bunch of radical lefty nutcases. Well, I've been called alot, but PC or "lefty" aren't any of the names usually hurled at me. ;) Besides the gas guzzling (which, BTW, SUVs aren't subject to the "gas guzzler" tax, which pisses me off to no end) I don't like SUVs for alot of reasons. Not the least of which is, very few people actually need them. I've never met anyone who actually takes their off-road. That BTR guy says he does, but I believe him to be an exception.

2003-01-09 23:29:08-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 >>><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>>>> >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>>>> >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >>>>>garage. >>>>> >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. >>>> >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>>>least those who live in cities. >>>> >>>>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >>>>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >>>>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >>>> >>>>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >>>>valid. >>> >>> >>>Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing >>>these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when >>>multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for >>>my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. >> >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy. I really don't understand what you are saying. If a hypocrite says something true, does that actually make it not true in your mind?

2003-01-09 23:29:08-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 >>><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>BTR1701 wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>>>> >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>>>> >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >>>>>garage. >>>>> >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. >>>> >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>>>least those who live in cities. >>>> >>>>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >>>>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >>>>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >>>> >>>>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >>>>valid. >>> >>> >>>Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing >>>these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when >>>multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for >>>my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. >> >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy. I really don't understand what you are saying. If a hypocrite says something true, does that actually make it not true in your mind?

2003-01-09 23:35:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1E1DE1.4060407@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>Willow Rosenberg wrote: >> >>>On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>>>least those who live in cities. >>> >>>I'll take public transportation when it actually works. >>> >>>I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >>>there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >>>doesn't break down which it does very often). >> >>It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for >>yourself or the right thing for everyone. > > > And who decides what is right? You? That's a decision everyone has to make, although I doubt there is really anyone who actually thinks it's better for *everyone* if they drive a car v. taking public transportation. It might be better for *you* but it's unlikely to be better for everyone, and I think most people know that. Now, for you in particular, BTR, it might be better for *everyone* for you to drive your car or SUV or whatever - obviously law enforcement officials have different responsibilities than most people. If I'm (or most people) an hour late to work one day 'cause the train broke down, no one is going to die. If you are late, someone may. see the difference?

2003-01-09 23:35:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1E1DE1.4060407@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>Willow Rosenberg wrote: >> >>>On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>>>least those who live in cities. >>> >>>I'll take public transportation when it actually works. >>> >>>I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >>>there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >>>doesn't break down which it does very often). >> >>It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for >>yourself or the right thing for everyone. > > > And who decides what is right? You? That's a decision everyone has to make, although I doubt there is really anyone who actually thinks it's better for *everyone* if they drive a car v. taking public transportation. It might be better for *you* but it's unlikely to be better for everyone, and I think most people know that. Now, for you in particular, BTR, it might be better for *everyone* for you to drive your car or SUV or whatever - obviously law enforcement officials have different responsibilities than most people. If I'm (or most people) an hour late to work one day 'cause the train broke down, no one is going to die. If you are late, someone may. see the difference?

2003-01-09 23:37:36-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <090120032109127021%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > >>In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw >><DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? >>> >>>You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >>>Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? >>> >>>You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. >>>Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? >>> >>>I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs >>>what >>>ma I missing? >> >>The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by >>trafficing in drugs. > > > > As someone else pointed out, those ads doing nothing so much as make an > argument for growing your own pot at home. so, what's wrong with that :) If they really wanted to end the "War on drugs" they would just stop fighting it - let the people who insist on killing themselves just do it and get it over w/ - it's not worth the resources we spend fighting it...

2003-01-09 23:37:36-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <090120032109127021%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > >>In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw >><DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? >>> >>>You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >>>Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? >>> >>>You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. >>>Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? >>> >>>I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs >>>what >>>ma I missing? >> >>The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by >>trafficing in drugs. > > > > As someone else pointed out, those ads doing nothing so much as make an > argument for growing your own pot at home. so, what's wrong with that :) If they really wanted to end the "War on drugs" they would just stop fighting it - let the people who insist on killing themselves just do it and get it over w/ - it's not worth the resources we spend fighting it...

2003-01-09 23:45:06-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <090120032051263053%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > >>In article <BTR1702-412BF2.16542009012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 >><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >>>In article >>><ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John >>>Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>BTR1701 wrote in message ... >>> >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>>>> >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>>>> >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >>>>>garage. >>>>> >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. >>>> >>>>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. >>> >>>Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car >>>garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot >>>more gas than my one SUV. >>> >>>You fantastic moron. >> >>But he only drives one at a time. > > > Assuming he's the only one driving them. > > And the high-intensity halogen lights that light up his rooftop tennis > court every night (and piss off all the other residents in the canyon), > they alone probably use more electricity than my house does in a month. > > We can quibble all night about the details but no one has yet put forth > a compelling argument that Norman Lear, multi-millionaire TV mogul, with > his sprawling Malibu compound, uses as much (or less) energy than the > average American who drives an SUV. I'm sure he uses much more. And I'm sure the ad folks who came up w/ the "war on drugs" and "drugs sponsors terrorist" ads use more drugs than the average person (I don't really know this but ad guys are always on coke in the movies :) ) > And Ariana Huffington, who authored these ads, freely admits to using > private jets to bop around the country. I wonder how much fuel one of > those jet trips uses compared to my SUV? I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 or something :) )

2003-01-09 23:45:06-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <090120032051263053%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > >>In article <BTR1702-412BF2.16542009012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 >><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >>>In article >>><ARiT9.102973$hK4.8360215@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "John >>>Singleton" <j.r.singleton@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>BTR1701 wrote in message ... >>> >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >>>>> >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >>>>> >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >>>>>garage. >>>>> >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. >>>> >>>>Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. >>> >>>Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car >>>garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot >>>more gas than my one SUV. >>> >>>You fantastic moron. >> >>But he only drives one at a time. > > > Assuming he's the only one driving them. > > And the high-intensity halogen lights that light up his rooftop tennis > court every night (and piss off all the other residents in the canyon), > they alone probably use more electricity than my house does in a month. > > We can quibble all night about the details but no one has yet put forth > a compelling argument that Norman Lear, multi-millionaire TV mogul, with > his sprawling Malibu compound, uses as much (or less) energy than the > average American who drives an SUV. I'm sure he uses much more. And I'm sure the ad folks who came up w/ the "war on drugs" and "drugs sponsors terrorist" ads use more drugs than the average person (I don't really know this but ad guys are always on coke in the movies :) ) > And Ariana Huffington, who authored these ads, freely admits to using > private jets to bop around the country. I wonder how much fuel one of > those jet trips uses compared to my SUV? I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 or something :) )

2003-01-09 23:46:15-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:01:26 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> > wrote: > >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > Conversely, it does not mean that their message IS legit, either. I > listen to people I know and trust. Another Hollywood moron preaching > to me about what a terrible person I am, and telling me what I need to > do, is not going to sway me. Never has. Well, obviously.

2003-01-09 23:46:15-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:01:26 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> > wrote: > >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > Conversely, it does not mean that their message IS legit, either. I > listen to people I know and trust. Another Hollywood moron preaching > to me about what a terrible person I am, and telling me what I need to > do, is not going to sway me. Never has. Well, obviously.

2003-01-10 00:09:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:42:05 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. > >I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >I was rear ended. Why do people only ever argue SUV vs. subcompact? How about a nice midsize sedan? I'm not asking you to drive a fricking Ford Festiva here, I wouldn't wish that on George W. Bush Himself. But try driving something that gets more than 8 miles to the gallon, won'tcha? Besides, I dunno which SUV you drive, but you do know the "it's safer" thing is a bit of a myth, right? A lot of those things roll over at the slightest perturbance. Not nearly as safe as, say, a Camry. Unless you get plowed into by a semi tractor-trailer full of iron ore, or something.

2003-01-10 00:09:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:42:05 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. > >I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >I was rear ended. Why do people only ever argue SUV vs. subcompact? How about a nice midsize sedan? I'm not asking you to drive a fricking Ford Festiva here, I wouldn't wish that on George W. Bush Himself. But try driving something that gets more than 8 miles to the gallon, won'tcha? Besides, I dunno which SUV you drive, but you do know the "it's safer" thing is a bit of a myth, right? A lot of those things roll over at the slightest perturbance. Not nearly as safe as, say, a Camry. Unless you get plowed into by a semi tractor-trailer full of iron ore, or something.

2003-01-10 00:33:35-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:37:11 GMT, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> I was rear ended. > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >tank. A tank that'll flop over on its roof in a stiff breeze. Well, some of 'em.

2003-01-10 00:33:35-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 02:37:11 GMT, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> I was rear ended. > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >tank. A tank that'll flop over on its roof in a stiff breeze. Well, some of 'em.

2003-01-10 00:35:23-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:38:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >You don't have to take one off-road to "need" them. They are great for >hauling around large loads, etc. True, true - but if ya ain't goin' off road, try the two-wheel-drive versions of them. Safer and cheaper to insure. And they get better mileage.

2003-01-10 00:35:23-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:38:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >You don't have to take one off-road to "need" them. They are great for >hauling around large loads, etc. True, true - but if ya ain't goin' off road, try the two-wheel-drive versions of them. Safer and cheaper to insure. And they get better mileage.

2003-01-10 02:34:45+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Dan Solomon <dansolo@attbi.com>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-420569.16545309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > In article <3E1D9EF9.96556F1E@uchicago.edu>, Jesse James Jensen > <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: >> > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my >> > lifestyle while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its >> > 21-car garage. >> > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >> > School of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> Right, because it's not hypocritical to equate drug use with >> supporting terrorism except for when it's you or your family > > Who the hell is talking about drug use? I'm talking about the SUV ads. That is a reference to the Drugs support terrorism ad campaign, which these ads mirror. The hypocrisy has to do with the history of drug use in the Bush family. -- Dan Solomon

2003-01-10 02:34:45+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Dan Solomon <dansolo@attbi.com>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-420569.16545309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > In article <3E1D9EF9.96556F1E@uchicago.edu>, Jesse James Jensen > <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: >> > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my >> > lifestyle while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its >> > 21-car garage. >> > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >> > School of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> Right, because it's not hypocritical to equate drug use with >> supporting terrorism except for when it's you or your family > > Who the hell is talking about drug use? I'm talking about the SUV ads. That is a reference to the Drugs support terrorism ad campaign, which these ads mirror. The hypocrisy has to do with the history of drug use in the Bush family. -- Dan Solomon

2003-01-10 02:35:08+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > If the local seller buys his heroin from people, directly or indirectly, from people who raised poppies for local warlords in the Middle East, like say.....Afghanistan... then there's a good chance that the junkie's money helped to support people who support terrorism. However, even if we assume we're just talking about coke if you have not heard there's a civil war going on in Columbia that been going on for many years. Just because their terrorists have not targetted Americans does not mean the local crackhead has not supported terrorism. It's just that he or she supported terrorism against someone other then Americans. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-10 02:35:08+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > If the local seller buys his heroin from people, directly or indirectly, from people who raised poppies for local warlords in the Middle East, like say.....Afghanistan... then there's a good chance that the junkie's money helped to support people who support terrorism. However, even if we assume we're just talking about coke if you have not heard there's a civil war going on in Columbia that been going on for many years. Just because their terrorists have not targetted Americans does not mean the local crackhead has not supported terrorism. It's just that he or she supported terrorism against someone other then Americans. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-10 02:37:11+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? > After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd > rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. > > I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when > I was rear ended. Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a tank. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-10 02:37:11+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? > After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd > rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. > > I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when > I was rear ended. Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a tank. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-10 06:31:26-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <OZyT9.6635$qU5.5173710@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E34327.22181809012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow > > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV > > > >driver but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > > > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this > > > >point on his talk show, guess what he did? > > > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > > > There are homes that are designed such that > > > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > > > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? > > > > I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it > > looks just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility > > hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every > > else's energy habits. > > > > His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch > > SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago. > > Please, please, PLEASE tell me you were not in the ''world's oldest > profession" . . . or an intern. LOL! No, nothing of the sort. And my job has nothing to do with who is in office at the moment. I spend as much time working Bush events now as I did working Clinton events a few years ago.

2003-01-10 06:31:26-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <OZyT9.6635$qU5.5173710@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E34327.22181809012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow > > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV > > > >driver but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > > > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this > > > >point on his talk show, guess what he did? > > > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > > > There are homes that are designed such that > > > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > > > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? > > > > I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it > > looks just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility > > hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every > > else's energy habits. > > > > His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch > > SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago. > > Please, please, PLEASE tell me you were not in the ''world's oldest > profession" . . . or an intern. LOL! No, nothing of the sort. And my job has nothing to do with who is in office at the moment. I spend as much time working Bush events now as I did working Clinton events a few years ago.

2003-01-10 06:32:56-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <OZyT9.6635$qU5.5173710@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E34327.22181809012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow > > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV > > > >driver but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > > > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this > > > >point on his talk show, guess what he did? > > > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > > > There are homes that are designed such that > > > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > > > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? > > > > I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it > > looks just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility > > hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every > > else's energy habits. > > > > His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch > > SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago. > > Please, please, PLEASE tell me you were not in the ''world's oldest > profession" . . . or an intern. LOL! No, nothing of the sort. And my job has nothing to do with who is in office at the moment. I spend as much time working Bush events now as I did working Clinton events a few years ago.

2003-01-10 06:32:56-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <OZyT9.6635$qU5.5173710@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E34327.22181809012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow > > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV > > > >driver but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > > > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this > > > >point on his talk show, guess what he did? > > > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > > > There are homes that are designed such that > > > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > > > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? > > > > I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it > > looks just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility > > hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every > > else's energy habits. > > > > His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch > > SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago. > > Please, please, PLEASE tell me you were not in the ''world's oldest > profession" . . . or an intern. LOL! No, nothing of the sort. And my job has nothing to do with who is in office at the moment. I spend as much time working Bush events now as I did working Clinton events a few years ago.

2003-01-10 06:35:03-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <v0xT9.104124$hK4.8450944@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Darwin Fish wrote in message ... > >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, > > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? > >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd > >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. > >> > >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when > >> I was rear ended. > > > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a > >tank. > > Well, true. > I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this > little > senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long > and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an > hour without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal > metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that > got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have > driven on without noticing. > She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and > mental > check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. > But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with > that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s > behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: > you could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch > it burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. > No question about it: when steel meets plastic, steel wins every time.

2003-01-10 06:35:03-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <v0xT9.104124$hK4.8450944@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Darwin Fish wrote in message ... > >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, > > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? > >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd > >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. > >> > >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when > >> I was rear ended. > > > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a > >tank. > > Well, true. > I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this > little > senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long > and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an > hour without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal > metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that > got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have > driven on without noticing. > She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and > mental > check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. > But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with > that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s > behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: > you could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch > it burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. > No question about it: when steel meets plastic, steel wins every time.

2003-01-10 08:27:49+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:35:03 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article ><v0xT9.104124$hK4.8450944@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> Darwin Fish wrote in message ... >> >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, >> > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >> >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >> >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >> >> >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> >> I was rear ended. >> > >> >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >> >tank. >> >> Well, true. >> I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this >> little >> senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long >> and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an >> hour without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal >> metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that >> got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have >> driven on without noticing. >> She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and >> mental >> check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. >> But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with >> that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s >> behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: >> you could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch >> it burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. >> > >No question about it: when steel meets plastic, steel wins every time. Old Leno routine about why he liked the older cars with the metal dashboards. You could get into an accident, be smashed into the dashboard getting it all bloody and gooey, all you would need to do is hose it down and be able to drive it again. Botch

2003-01-10 08:27:49+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 06:35:03 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article ><v0xT9.104124$hK4.8450944@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, >"Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> Darwin Fish wrote in message ... >> >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, >> > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >> >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >> >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >> >> >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> >> I was rear ended. >> > >> >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >> >tank. >> >> Well, true. >> I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this >> little >> senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long >> and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an >> hour without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal >> metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that >> got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have >> driven on without noticing. >> She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and >> mental >> check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. >> But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with >> that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s >> behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: >> you could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch >> it burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. >> > >No question about it: when steel meets plastic, steel wins every time. Old Leno routine about why he liked the older cars with the metal dashboards. You could get into an accident, be smashed into the dashboard getting it all bloody and gooey, all you would need to do is hose it down and be able to drive it again. Botch

2003-01-10 10:11:56-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:52:18 GMT, "Carey" <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com> wrote: > >"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message >news:a-43AA7E.20352009012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... >> In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, >> DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: >> >> > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? >> > >> > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >> > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? >> > >> >> If the local seller buys his heroin from people, directly or indirectly, >> from people who raised poppies for local warlords in the Middle East, >> like say.....Afghanistan... then there's a good chance that the junkie's >> money helped to support people who support terrorism. >> >> However, even if we assume we're just talking about coke if you have not >> heard there's a civil war going on in Columbia that been going on for >> many years. Just because their terrorists have not targetted Americans >> does not mean the local crackhead has not supported terrorism. It's just >> that he or she supported terrorism against someone other then Americans. >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Let the Darwin Fishes swim! >> www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The Drugs -> Terrorism this is pretty straightforward, though I am surprised >the NEA advertised. > >Drugs are purchased in order to launder money from American government >sources. That money is then filtered to the current crop of "freedom >fighters" to buy weapons and large Swiss back accounts. > >5 - 10 years later, these freedom fighters have matured into terrorist. > >It is like a recipe. > So let's cut off their funding and legalise drugs. ___________________________ ... just more than contended to be living and dying in three-quarter time

2003-01-10 10:11:56-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 12:52:18 GMT, "Carey" <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com> wrote: > >"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message >news:a-43AA7E.20352009012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... >> In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, >> DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: >> >> > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? >> > >> > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >> > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? >> > >> >> If the local seller buys his heroin from people, directly or indirectly, >> from people who raised poppies for local warlords in the Middle East, >> like say.....Afghanistan... then there's a good chance that the junkie's >> money helped to support people who support terrorism. >> >> However, even if we assume we're just talking about coke if you have not >> heard there's a civil war going on in Columbia that been going on for >> many years. Just because their terrorists have not targetted Americans >> does not mean the local crackhead has not supported terrorism. It's just >> that he or she supported terrorism against someone other then Americans. >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Let the Darwin Fishes swim! >> www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The Drugs -> Terrorism this is pretty straightforward, though I am surprised >the NEA advertised. > >Drugs are purchased in order to launder money from American government >sources. That money is then filtered to the current crop of "freedom >fighters" to buy weapons and large Swiss back accounts. > >5 - 10 years later, these freedom fighters have matured into terrorist. > >It is like a recipe. > So let's cut off their funding and legalise drugs. ___________________________ ... just more than contended to be living and dying in three-quarter time

2003-01-10 10:12:43+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Darwin Fish wrote in message ... >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> I was rear ended. > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >tank. Well, true. I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this little senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an hour without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have driven on without noticing. She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and mental check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: you could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch it burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror.

2003-01-10 10:12:43+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Darwin Fish wrote in message ... >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> I was rear ended. > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >tank. Well, true. I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this little senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an hour without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have driven on without noticing. She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and mental check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: you could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch it burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror.

2003-01-10 10:21:37+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-E17D5F.15434809012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <q8kr1vk8lglbvjnt7v4ngcoh2gj5a0qhg7@4ax.com>, > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 Jan 2003 11:54:12 -0600, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > > >In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > > ><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > >> > > >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > > >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > >> > > >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > >> > > >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > >> of Social Hypocrisy. > > > > > >Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > > >terrorism" ads. > > > > > > Could be. But I doubt they are that clever. > > > > Anyway, the first thing I think of when I see those doing > > drugs=terrorism ads is that they are making a pretty good argument for > > buying homegrown. > > Too true. However, I do see a connection to the heroin, diamond, oil > connection with terrorism. During WWII there were a lot of great > propaganda posters along the lines of "If you drive alone you drive with > Hilter" that really showed to the American people how their decesions > can have a real effect on the war effort. Yes, I realize that most > Victory gardens and recycle programs were in place just to give the > people the feeling they were doing something but a little can go a long > way if enough people participate. And while I don't expect junkies to > get off smack to be patriotic I can see people buying more > fuel-efficient... > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Maher has a book WHEN YOU DRIVE ALONE, YOU DRIVE WITH BIN LADEN. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 10:21:37+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-E17D5F.15434809012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <q8kr1vk8lglbvjnt7v4ngcoh2gj5a0qhg7@4ax.com>, > "Rick Ramey, Celestial Engineer" <rickramey@nospamhotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 Jan 2003 11:54:12 -0600, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > > >In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > > ><BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > >> > > >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers > > >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > >> > > >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > >> > > >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > >> of Social Hypocrisy. > > > > > >Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > > >terrorism" ads. > > > > > > Could be. But I doubt they are that clever. > > > > Anyway, the first thing I think of when I see those doing > > drugs=terrorism ads is that they are making a pretty good argument for > > buying homegrown. > > Too true. However, I do see a connection to the heroin, diamond, oil > connection with terrorism. During WWII there were a lot of great > propaganda posters along the lines of "If you drive alone you drive with > Hilter" that really showed to the American people how their decesions > can have a real effect on the war effort. Yes, I realize that most > Victory gardens and recycle programs were in place just to give the > people the feeling they were doing something but a little can go a long > way if enough people participate. And while I don't expect junkies to > get off smack to be patriotic I can see people buying more > fuel-efficient... > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Maher has a book WHEN YOU DRIVE ALONE, YOU DRIVE WITH BIN LADEN. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 11:16:29-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu>)


BTR1701 wrote: > > Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe > to grind but that's not the issue here. Well, specifically, the drug use = terrorism ads were created by the Bush administration and are blatantly false and hypocritical. If you replace the word "drug" with the word "oil", however, you have a pretty strong case. So some people decided that since the government was actively telling lies while actively suppressing the truth, they would put the truth out there. And the result is this SUV ad. Now, I'm sorry that you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance after seeing the ad and learning the truth. But rather than get angry, a more productive solution would be to get with it and stop being part of the problem. Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists.

2003-01-10 11:16:29-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu>)


BTR1701 wrote: > > Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe > to grind but that's not the issue here. Well, specifically, the drug use = terrorism ads were created by the Bush administration and are blatantly false and hypocritical. If you replace the word "drug" with the word "oil", however, you have a pretty strong case. So some people decided that since the government was actively telling lies while actively suppressing the truth, they would put the truth out there. And the result is this SUV ad. Now, I'm sorry that you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance after seeing the ad and learning the truth. But rather than get angry, a more productive solution would be to get with it and stop being part of the problem. Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists.

2003-01-10 12:07:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC countries? Why excoriate her for pointing that out? It's a hell of a lot more meaningful than any bogus pot=terrorism campaign. -- "Don't be grumpy with her! Who among us can resist the allure of really funny math puns?"

2003-01-10 12:07:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC countries? Why excoriate her for pointing that out? It's a hell of a lot more meaningful than any bogus pot=terrorism campaign. -- "Don't be grumpy with her! Who among us can resist the allure of really funny math puns?"

2003-01-10 12:13:51-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >wrote: > > >> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >>need to anyone. > >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. Our country burns a lot of oil, oil that we buy from the some of the same clans that finance al-Qaeda. How hard is *that* to understand? Personally I think SUVs are ridiculous. But I'll defend your right to buy and own your luxury truck. -- "Don't be grumpy with her! Who among us can resist the allure of really funny math puns?"

2003-01-10 12:13:51-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >wrote: > > >> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >>need to anyone. > >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. Our country burns a lot of oil, oil that we buy from the some of the same clans that finance al-Qaeda. How hard is *that* to understand? Personally I think SUVs are ridiculous. But I'll defend your right to buy and own your luxury truck. -- "Don't be grumpy with her! Who among us can resist the allure of really funny math puns?"

2003-01-10 12:24:26+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E05042.22192509012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <ot4s1vs5b9bf1hh0tjof8l1bmt9qc86s1p@4ax.com>, Willow > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > > >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > > >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > > >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > > >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > > >like everyone else. > > > How much does someone spend to heat a house in Hollywood? > > Probably about as much per square foot as I spend to heat mine in South > Texas. Probably jack squat, but then that might be more than made up by how much it costs to COOL his house. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 12:24:26+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E05042.22192509012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <ot4s1vs5b9bf1hh0tjof8l1bmt9qc86s1p@4ax.com>, Willow > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > > >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > > >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > > >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > > >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > > >like everyone else. > > > How much does someone spend to heat a house in Hollywood? > > Probably about as much per square foot as I spend to heat mine in South > Texas. Probably jack squat, but then that might be more than made up by how much it costs to COOL his house. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 12:26:22+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E34327.22181809012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > > >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > > >his talk show, guess what he did? > > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > > There are homes that are designed such that > > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? > > I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it looks > just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility > hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every > else's energy habits. > > His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch > SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago. Please, please, PLEASE tell me you were not in the ''world's oldest profession" . . . or an intern. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 12:26:22+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E34327.22181809012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <c35s1vov9hd9h122v1hrgbud48t00jogeq@4ax.com>, Willow > Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > > >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > > >his talk show, guess what he did? > > Are you sure he doesn't have an "energy efficient" house? > > There are homes that are designed such that > > they need no heat, air conditioning, etc. Do you > > know for a fact that he doesn't have one of them? > > I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it looks > just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility > hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every > else's energy habits. > > His environmentalism also didn't stop him from pulling up in a stretch > SUV limousine to a Clinton fund raiser I was working a few years ago. Please, please, PLEASE tell me you were not in the ''world's oldest profession" . . . or an intern. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 12:32:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Eeyore48" <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote in message news:3E1E4C14.2010400@baerana.com... > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >>><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>>>> > >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>>>garage. > >>>>> > >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>>> > >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>>>least those who live in cities. > >>>> > >>>>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >>>>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >>>>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >>>> > >>>>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >>>>valid. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >>>these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >>>multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >>>my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. > >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no > >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they > >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, > >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > > > > Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy. > > I really don't understand what you are saying. If a hypocrite says > something true, does that actually make it not true in your mind? > NEVER. My experience, knowledge or expertise has absolutely NOTHING to do with the accuracy of my statements. However, they do have great bearing on the TRUSTWORTHINESS of my statements: whether YOU should TRUST me, especially in the absence of other evidence. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 12:32:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Eeyore48" <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote in message news:3E1E4C14.2010400@baerana.com... > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >>><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>>>> > >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>>>garage. > >>>>> > >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>>> > >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>>>least those who live in cities. > >>>> > >>>>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >>>>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >>>>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >>>> > >>>>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >>>>valid. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >>>these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >>>multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >>>my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. > >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no > >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they > >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, > >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > > > > Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy. > > I really don't understand what you are saying. If a hypocrite says > something true, does that actually make it not true in your mind? > NEVER. My experience, knowledge or expertise has absolutely NOTHING to do with the accuracy of my statements. However, they do have great bearing on the TRUSTWORTHINESS of my statements: whether YOU should TRUST me, especially in the absence of other evidence. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-10 12:44:10-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay Leno's > > collection of cars and motorcycles. > > And you know this how? The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all.

2003-01-10 12:44:10-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay Leno's > > collection of cars and motorcycles. > > And you know this how? The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all.

2003-01-10 12:52:18+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Carey <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-43AA7E.20352009012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, > DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > > > If the local seller buys his heroin from people, directly or indirectly, > from people who raised poppies for local warlords in the Middle East, > like say.....Afghanistan... then there's a good chance that the junkie's > money helped to support people who support terrorism. > > However, even if we assume we're just talking about coke if you have not > heard there's a civil war going on in Columbia that been going on for > many years. Just because their terrorists have not targetted Americans > does not mean the local crackhead has not supported terrorism. It's just > that he or she supported terrorism against someone other then Americans. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Drugs -> Terrorism this is pretty straightforward, though I am surprised the NEA advertised. Drugs are purchased in order to launder money from American government sources. That money is then filtered to the current crop of "freedom fighters" to buy weapons and large Swiss back accounts. 5 - 10 years later, these freedom fighters have matured into terrorist. It is like a recipe.

2003-01-10 12:52:18+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Carey <no*tedjr*spam@rogers.com>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-43AA7E.20352009012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, > DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com (dw) wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > > > If the local seller buys his heroin from people, directly or indirectly, > from people who raised poppies for local warlords in the Middle East, > like say.....Afghanistan... then there's a good chance that the junkie's > money helped to support people who support terrorism. > > However, even if we assume we're just talking about coke if you have not > heard there's a civil war going on in Columbia that been going on for > many years. Just because their terrorists have not targetted Americans > does not mean the local crackhead has not supported terrorism. It's just > that he or she supported terrorism against someone other then Americans. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Drugs -> Terrorism this is pretty straightforward, though I am surprised the NEA advertised. Drugs are purchased in order to launder money from American government sources. That money is then filtered to the current crop of "freedom fighters" to buy weapons and large Swiss back accounts. 5 - 10 years later, these freedom fighters have matured into terrorist. It is like a recipe.

2003-01-10 13:29:41-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> rose up and issued forth: >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> I was rear ended. > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >tank. I don't off road, but I do haul a lot of stuff (furniture, lumber, computers) and have to carry more than 3 passengers a lot of the time, plus being a very large individual, the SUV I have is one of the only vehicles I can comfortably get behind the wheel of, not to mention the superior visibility, and very useful 4wd for when it snows around here and the snow plows don't plow the gravel alleys where most of us in Evanston seem to have our garages, so the need to get over 3 foot or better drifts/heaps of snow to get out of the garage and alley onto the street makes it rather difficult in a car. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "I have a dream; a dream that all people -- human, Jem'Hadar, Ferengi, Cardassians -- will someday stand together in peace... around my Dabo tables." -- Quark

2003-01-10 13:29:41-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> rose up and issued forth: >In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >> I was rear ended. > >Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >tank. I don't off road, but I do haul a lot of stuff (furniture, lumber, computers) and have to carry more than 3 passengers a lot of the time, plus being a very large individual, the SUV I have is one of the only vehicles I can comfortably get behind the wheel of, not to mention the superior visibility, and very useful 4wd for when it snows around here and the snow plows don't plow the gravel alleys where most of us in Evanston seem to have our garages, so the need to get over 3 foot or better drifts/heaps of snow to get out of the garage and alley onto the street makes it rather difficult in a car. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "I have a dream; a dream that all people -- human, Jem'Hadar, Ferengi, Cardassians -- will someday stand together in peace... around my Dabo tables." -- Quark

2003-01-10 13:34:08-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> rose up and issued forth: > >Darwin Fish wrote in message ... >>In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, >> Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> >>> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >>> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >>> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >>> >>> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >>> I was rear ended. >> >>Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >>tank. > > Well, true. > I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this little >senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long >and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an hour >without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal >metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that >got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have >driven on without noticing. > She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and mental >check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. > But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with >that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s >behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: you >could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch it >burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. Friend of mine in HS had a 69 AMC Rebel, all steel. Had a headon with a Toyota, totalling the Toyota and not even breaking a headlight on the Rebel. Finally we managed to give it a dent in the rear passenger door by skidding sideways into a 5 foot boulder at 60mph. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "You must have a death wish." - Velasca "I think I do." - Callisto

2003-01-10 13:34:08-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> rose up and issued forth: > >Darwin Fish wrote in message ... >>In article <6k5s1vc60h77o206j51a4k8pc07egep4e1@4ax.com>, >> Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> >>> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >>> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >>> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >>> >>> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >>> I was rear ended. >> >>Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >>tank. > > Well, true. > I was at a local mall yesterday and I saw a tank in action: this little >senile shrivelled old lady was in this 30 year old clunker, 30 feet long >and 10 feet wide (or so it seemed to me), which she drove at 5 miles an hour >without any use of the turn signals built into the 3 ton chunk of lethal >metal. My car would have been scrap if I'd got in her way. Any SUV that >got in her way would have been trashed too. And she would possibly have >driven on without noticing. > She was a glowing example for the need of an annual physical and mental >check for drivers over 70 or 80 or whatever age she was. > But if I was in the car stealing business, I'd have had it away with >that car. There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s >behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: you >could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch it >burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. Friend of mine in HS had a 69 AMC Rebel, all steel. Had a headon with a Toyota, totalling the Toyota and not even breaking a headlight on the Rebel. Finally we managed to give it a dent in the rear passenger door by skidding sideways into a 5 foot boulder at 60mph. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "You must have a death wish." - Velasca "I think I do." - Callisto

2003-01-10 13:43:16-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> rose up and issued forth: > > >BTR1701 wrote: >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> of Social Hypocrisy. > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >least those who live in cities. > >I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >valid. (Most people are hypocrite, anyway, doesn't mean they are wrong, >just selfish) I would prefer we make more use of the domestic oil sources we have in this country to buy less oil from overseas. There are huge oil fields in southern/central Illinois that are barely being tapped. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for thou arte Crunchy and taste good with Ketchup.

2003-01-10 13:43:16-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> rose up and issued forth: > > >BTR1701 wrote: >> Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> >> I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV Drivers >> Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> >> Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> >> He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> of Social Hypocrisy. > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >least those who live in cities. > >I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >valid. (Most people are hypocrite, anyway, doesn't mean they are wrong, >just selfish) I would prefer we make more use of the domestic oil sources we have in this country to buy less oil from overseas. There are huge oil fields in southern/central Illinois that are barely being tapped. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for thou arte Crunchy and taste good with Ketchup.

2003-01-10 13:53:36-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> rose up and issued forth: >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:38:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >wrote: > >>You don't have to take one off-road to "need" them. They are great for >>hauling around large loads, etc. > >True, true - but if ya ain't goin' off road, try the two-wheel-drive >versions of them. Safer and cheaper to insure. And they get better >mileage. So, you are claiming that a 2wd SUV gets better mileage than a 4wd SUV in 2wd mode? -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "If God had meant for us to be naked, we'd have been born that way." - Mark Twain (hee hee!)

2003-01-10 13:53:36-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> rose up and issued forth: >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 22:38:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >wrote: > >>You don't have to take one off-road to "need" them. They are great for >>hauling around large loads, etc. > >True, true - but if ya ain't goin' off road, try the two-wheel-drive >versions of them. Safer and cheaper to insure. And they get better >mileage. So, you are claiming that a 2wd SUV gets better mileage than a 4wd SUV in 2wd mode? -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "If God had meant for us to be naked, we'd have been born that way." - Mark Twain (hee hee!)

2003-01-10 13:55:14-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> rose up and issued forth: >In article <090120032109127021%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample ><dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > >> In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw >> <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? >> > >> > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >> > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? >> > >> > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. >> > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? >> > >> > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs >> > what >> > ma I missing? >> >> The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by >> trafficing in drugs. > > >As someone else pointed out, those ads doing nothing so much as make an >argument for growing your own pot at home. Not to mention the Drug Cartels they are talking about are not major pot suppliers, they are cocain and heroin suppliers. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "All the fresh air in the world won't make a fucking difference." - Trainspotting

2003-01-10 13:55:14-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> rose up and issued forth: >In article <090120032109127021%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample ><dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > >> In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw >> <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? >> > >> > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in >> > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? >> > >> > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. >> > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? >> > >> > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs >> > what >> > ma I missing? >> >> The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by >> trafficing in drugs. > > >As someone else pointed out, those ads doing nothing so much as make an >argument for growing your own pot at home. Not to mention the Drug Cartels they are talking about are not major pot suppliers, they are cocain and heroin suppliers. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "All the fresh air in the world won't make a fucking difference." - Trainspotting

2003-01-10 13:59:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <BTR1702-52F231.22272309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). >I just put mine in my office. Along with the goat. -- David Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-10 13:59:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <BTR1702-52F231.22272309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). >I just put mine in my office. Along with the goat. -- David Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-10 14:24:56-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <nieporen-0AC4E6.13590310012003@news-east.giganews.com>, David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-52F231.22272309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, > >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). > > >I just put mine in my office. > > Along with the goat. Huh?

2003-01-10 14:24:56-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <nieporen-0AC4E6.13590310012003@news-east.giganews.com>, David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > In article <BTR1702-52F231.22272309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, > >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). > > >I just put mine in my office. > > Along with the goat. Huh?

2003-01-10 14:27:34-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1EFFED.ACA13883@uchicago.edu>, Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe > > to grind but that's not the issue here. > > Well, specifically, the drug use = terrorism ads were created by the > Bush administration and are blatantly false and hypocritical. If you > replace the word "drug" with the word "oil", however, you have a pretty > strong case. > > So some people decided that since the government was actively telling > lies while actively suppressing the truth, they would put the truth out > there. And the result is this SUV ad. > > Now, I'm sorry that you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance after > seeing the ad and learning the truth. Wow, those are big words. Try not to hurt yourself. > But rather than get angry, a more > productive solution would be to get with it and stop being part of the > problem. Who said I was angry about that? If I'm angry about anything, it's about being preached to by hypocrites who use more fossil fuels (by a factor of 10) than I do. > Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy > in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. No, no, no and I already do.

2003-01-10 14:27:34-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1EFFED.ACA13883@uchicago.edu>, Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe > > to grind but that's not the issue here. > > Well, specifically, the drug use = terrorism ads were created by the > Bush administration and are blatantly false and hypocritical. If you > replace the word "drug" with the word "oil", however, you have a pretty > strong case. > > So some people decided that since the government was actively telling > lies while actively suppressing the truth, they would put the truth out > there. And the result is this SUV ad. > > Now, I'm sorry that you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance after > seeing the ad and learning the truth. Wow, those are big words. Try not to hurt yourself. > But rather than get angry, a more > productive solution would be to get with it and stop being part of the > problem. Who said I was angry about that? If I'm angry about anything, it's about being preached to by hypocrites who use more fossil fuels (by a factor of 10) than I do. > Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy > in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. No, no, no and I already do.

2003-01-10 14:30:07-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > And you know this how? > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood that something is the case. As for Leno, it's a commonly-known fact that his cars aren't just collector's showpieces that sit in the garage and never see the light of day. The man own dozens of vehicles and drives them all. His staff jokes that he drives a different car to work every day and it's months before they see a repeat.

2003-01-10 14:30:07-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > And you know this how? > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood that something is the case. As for Leno, it's a commonly-known fact that his cars aren't just collector's showpieces that sit in the garage and never see the light of day. The man own dozens of vehicles and drives them all. His staff jokes that he drives a different car to work every day and it's months before they see a repeat.

2003-01-10 14:32:40-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > > > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > > > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > > > But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > countries? > > Why excoriate her for pointing that out? Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private jet deserves to be excoriated. I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. Nauseating.

2003-01-10 14:32:40-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > > > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > > > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > > > But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > countries? > > Why excoriate her for pointing that out? Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private jet deserves to be excoriated. I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. Nauseating.

2003-01-10 14:35:15-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: > > >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >wrote: > > > > > >> > >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of > >>need to anyone. > > > >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is > >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. > > > Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a > convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make > you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the rest of us how to live.

2003-01-10 14:35:15-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: > > >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >wrote: > > > > > >> > >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of > >>need to anyone. > > > >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is > >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. > > > Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a > convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make > you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the rest of us how to live.

2003-01-10 14:42:19-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<BTR1702-B2718D.16521309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... > In article <090120031251207948%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > > > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > > > > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > > of Social Hypocrisy. > > > > Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > > terrorism" ads. > > Not if you listen to the interviews Huffington has been giving on all > the news shows. She's serious about it. > > I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > aboard a private jet and flies across country? > > I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. *You* go tell her that--that woman is scarier than a room full of vampires. I remember seeing her on a panel show where Henry Kissenger was on the other side, and she had him in full retreat from sheer nastiness (I wasn't deeply impressed by the logic of her argument, IIRC). She was married to the empty suit that the Republicans ran in California against Feinstein for the Senate in 1994, and now that she's on her own she's just gotten scarier. The one thing on which I will probably ever agree with Al Franken is his joking description of her--"beautiful but evil." Well, more the latter than the former. M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-10 14:42:19-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<BTR1702-B2718D.16521309012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>... > In article <090120031251207948%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > > <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > > > > > > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > > > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > > > > > > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > > > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > > > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. > > > > > > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School > > > of Social Hypocrisy. > > > > Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > > terrorism" ads. > > Not if you listen to the interviews Huffington has been giving on all > the news shows. She's serious about it. > > I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > aboard a private jet and flies across country? > > I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. *You* go tell her that--that woman is scarier than a room full of vampires. I remember seeing her on a panel show where Henry Kissenger was on the other side, and she had him in full retreat from sheer nastiness (I wasn't deeply impressed by the logic of her argument, IIRC). She was married to the empty suit that the Republicans ran in California against Feinstein for the Senate in 1994, and now that she's on her own she's just gotten scarier. The one thing on which I will probably ever agree with Al Franken is his joking description of her--"beautiful but evil." Well, more the latter than the former. M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-10 14:45:47-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote in message news:<3E1E4C14.2010400@baerana.com>... > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >>><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>>>> > >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>>>garage. > >>>>> > >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>>> > >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>>>least those who live in cities. > >>>> > >>>>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >>>>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >>>>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >>>> > >>>>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >>>>valid. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >>>these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >>>multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >>>my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. > >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no > >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they > >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, > >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > > > > Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy. > > I really don't understand what you are saying. If a hypocrite says > something true, does that actually make it not true in your mind? It certainly makes it reasonable to turn to the individual in question and reply, "After you, dear." M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-10 14:45:47-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote in message news:<3E1E4C14.2010400@baerana.com>... > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1E1B66.30903@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >>><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >>>>> > >>>>>I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >>>>>Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >>>>> > >>>>>Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >>>>>tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >>>>>while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >>>>>garage. > >>>>> > >>>>>He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >>>>>School of Social Hypocrisy. > >>>> > >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>>>least those who live in cities. > >>>> > >>>>I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >>>>attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >>>>dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >>>> > >>>>Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >>>>valid. > >>> > >>> > >>>Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >>>these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >>>multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >>>my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > >>Well, obviously I'll never be able to afford to produce commercials. > >>People who can afford such things are generally selfish assholes (no > >>offense to any selfish assholes reading this). Still, just because they > >>are selfish jerks who own huge homes and burn money in their fireplace, > >>doesn't mean the message in their commercials isn't legit. > > > > > > Yes, it does. The message is colored by their own elitist hypocrisy. > > I really don't understand what you are saying. If a hypocrite says > something true, does that actually make it not true in your mind? It certainly makes it reasonable to turn to the individual in question and reply, "After you, dear." M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-10 14:52:55-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote in message news:<3E1E4DA1.7020605@baerana.com>... > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1E1DE1.4060407@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Willow Rosenberg wrote: > >> > >>>On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>>>least those who live in cities. > >>> > >>>I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > >>> > >>>I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > >>>there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > >>>doesn't break down which it does very often). > >> > >>It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for > >>yourself or the right thing for everyone. > > > > > > And who decides what is right? You? > > That's a decision everyone has to make, although I doubt there is really > anyone who actually thinks it's better for *everyone* if they drive a > car v. taking public transportation. It might be better for *you* but > it's unlikely to be better for everyone, and I think most people know > that. Now, for you in particular, BTR, it might be better for > *everyone* for you to drive your car or SUV or whatever - obviously law > enforcement officials have different responsibilities than most people. > If I'm (or most people) an hour late to work one day 'cause the train > broke down, no one is going to die. If you are late, someone may. see > the difference? Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-10 14:52:55-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote in message news:<3E1E4DA1.7020605@baerana.com>... > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1E1DE1.4060407@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>Willow Rosenberg wrote: > >> > >>>On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>>>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>>>least those who live in cities. > >>> > >>>I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > >>> > >>>I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > >>>there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > >>>doesn't break down which it does very often). > >> > >>It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for > >>yourself or the right thing for everyone. > > > > > > And who decides what is right? You? > > That's a decision everyone has to make, although I doubt there is really > anyone who actually thinks it's better for *everyone* if they drive a > car v. taking public transportation. It might be better for *you* but > it's unlikely to be better for everyone, and I think most people know > that. Now, for you in particular, BTR, it might be better for > *everyone* for you to drive your car or SUV or whatever - obviously law > enforcement officials have different responsibilities than most people. > If I'm (or most people) an hour late to work one day 'cause the train > broke down, no one is going to die. If you are late, someone may. see > the difference? Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-10 15:46:34-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? >>> >>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. >> >> >>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's >>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC >>countries? >> >>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > > > Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving > cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private > jet deserves to be excoriated. > > I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > > Nauseating. Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the people" don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. I'd like to think if I was rich I still wouldn't waste resources, but maybe I would. Maybe the lure of "oil-drenched luxury" is just too strong to fight.

2003-01-10 15:46:34-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? >>> >>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. >> >> >>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's >>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC >>countries? >> >>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > > > Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving > cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private > jet deserves to be excoriated. > > I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > > Nauseating. Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the people" don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. I'd like to think if I was rich I still wouldn't waste resources, but maybe I would. Maybe the lure of "oil-drenched luxury" is just too strong to fight.

2003-01-10 15:55:37+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >>In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie >><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >>> >>> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >>> >>need to anyone. >>> > >>> >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is >>> >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. >>> >>> >>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >> >>Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in >>that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the >>rest of us how to live. > >Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? I see >it as forcing the oil=terrorism connection in people's minds, rather >than trying to cram a lifestyle alteration down their throats. No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is Ed Bagley Jr. Botch

2003-01-10 15:55:37+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >>In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie >><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >>> >>> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >>> >>need to anyone. >>> > >>> >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is >>> >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. >>> >>> >>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >> >>Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in >>that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the >>rest of us how to live. > >Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? I see >it as forcing the oil=terrorism connection in people's minds, rather >than trying to cram a lifestyle alteration down their throats. No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is Ed Bagley Jr. Botch

2003-01-10 16:06:46-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (-Andy- <acs@fcgnet.works.net>)


Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> enlightened us with news:rsfu1vgrgj5l404siugkbnrpj6skc9f37m@4ax.com on 10 Jan 2003: > Thus spake sillyman@famous.com: >>Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. > > How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or > guffawing. I suppose I could chortle instead. Chortling could be taken as a serious affront by some. You'll want to be careful with it. -Andy-

2003-01-10 16:06:46-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (-Andy- <acs@fcgnet.works.net>)


Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> enlightened us with news:rsfu1vgrgj5l404siugkbnrpj6skc9f37m@4ax.com on 10 Jan 2003: > Thus spake sillyman@famous.com: >>Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. > > How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or > guffawing. I suppose I could chortle instead. Chortling could be taken as a serious affront by some. You'll want to be careful with it. -Andy-

2003-01-10 16:28:55-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> > >> >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >> >aboard a private jet and flies across country? >> > >> >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. >> >> >> But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's >> massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC >> countries? >> >> Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > >Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving >cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private >jet deserves to be excoriated. > >I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family >members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while >living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > "Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. -- "Don't be grumpy with her! Who among us can resist the allure of really funny math puns?"

2003-01-10 16:28:55-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> > >> >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >> >aboard a private jet and flies across country? >> > >> >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. >> >> >> But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's >> massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC >> countries? >> >> Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > >Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving >cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private >jet deserves to be excoriated. > >I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family >members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while >living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > "Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. -- "Don't be grumpy with her! Who among us can resist the allure of really funny math puns?"

2003-01-10 16:33:51-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >> >> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >> >>need to anyone. >> > >> >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is >> >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. >> >> >> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. > >Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in >that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the >rest of us how to live. Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? I see it as forcing the oil=terrorism connection in people's minds, rather than trying to cram a lifestyle alteration down their throats. -- "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"

2003-01-10 16:33:51-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >> >> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >> >wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms of >> >>need to anyone. >> > >> >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is >> >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. >> >> >> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. > >Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in >that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the >rest of us how to live. Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? I see it as forcing the oil=terrorism connection in people's minds, rather than trying to cram a lifestyle alteration down their throats. -- "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"

2003-01-10 16:39:29-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >> Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy >> in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. > >No, no, no and I already do. (A) Foreign oil funds terrorists. (B) All Americans, not just BTR1701, use foreign oil, either directly (purchase of gasoline) or indirectly (e.g. use of plastics; use of services based on internal-combustion engines, such as public busses and airplanes; ). (C) BTR1701 is an American (D) [left as an exercise for the student] -- "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"

2003-01-10 16:39:29-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >> Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy >> in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. > >No, no, no and I already do. (A) Foreign oil funds terrorists. (B) All Americans, not just BTR1701, use foreign oil, either directly (purchase of gasoline) or indirectly (e.g. use of plastics; use of services based on internal-combustion engines, such as public busses and airplanes; ). (C) BTR1701 is an American (D) [left as an exercise for the student] -- "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"

2003-01-10 16:47:49-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > > > And you know this how? > > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > > > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood > that something is the case. Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. Quit while you're behind, already.

2003-01-10 16:47:49-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > > > And you know this how? > > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > > > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood > that something is the case. Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. Quit while you're behind, already.

2003-01-10 16:55:06-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake sillyman@famous.com: > >> >>"Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead >>oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using >>PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? >> >>All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've >>taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. > >What does the second S stand for? Oh, nothing really, just a pun on a country that doesn't exist anymore. It's mildly snarky, and I think it's a lot friendlier than "Amerikkka" :). Though I'm also fond of "Amurka". > >Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or guffawing. I suppose I could chortle instead. -- "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"

2003-01-10 16:55:06-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake sillyman@famous.com: > >> >>"Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead >>oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using >>PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? >> >>All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've >>taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. > >What does the second S stand for? Oh, nothing really, just a pun on a country that doesn't exist anymore. It's mildly snarky, and I think it's a lot friendlier than "Amerikkka" :). Though I'm also fond of "Amurka". > >Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or guffawing. I suppose I could chortle instead. -- "That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, Bingo!"

2003-01-10 17:22:12-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake "-Andy-" <acs@fcgnet.works.net>: >Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> enlightened us with >news:rsfu1vgrgj5l404siugkbnrpj6skc9f37m@4ax.com on 10 Jan 2003: > >> Thus spake sillyman@famous.com: > >>>Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. >> >> How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or >> guffawing. I suppose I could chortle instead. > > >Chortling could be taken as a serious affront by some. You'll want to >be careful with it. > Maybe there's a an Approved List Of Humorous Reactions somewhere I could download? -- "That probably would've sounded more convincing if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas."

2003-01-10 17:22:12-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake "-Andy-" <acs@fcgnet.works.net>: >Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> enlightened us with >news:rsfu1vgrgj5l404siugkbnrpj6skc9f37m@4ax.com on 10 Jan 2003: > >> Thus spake sillyman@famous.com: > >>>Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. >> >> How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or >> guffawing. I suppose I could chortle instead. > > >Chortling could be taken as a serious affront by some. You'll want to >be careful with it. > Maybe there's a an Approved List Of Humorous Reactions somewhere I could download? -- "That probably would've sounded more convincing if I wasn't wearing my yummy sushi pajamas."

2003-01-10 18:23:38+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: > >>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>> >> >>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>Ed Bagley Jr. > > > >Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. I agree >Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into question the validity of their statement and why their making it. If you can't trust or believe the person making the statement then it hurts whatever point they're trying to make, whether it's valid or not. >The hypocrisy angle is just smoke. If I don't trust you, then why should I believe what you're saying? It's not just smoke. >As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >because people *remember* them. So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? They do bring up smoking afterall? I don't think so. Botch

2003-01-10 18:23:38+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: > >>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >>>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>> >> >>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>Ed Bagley Jr. > > > >Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. I agree >Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into question the validity of their statement and why their making it. If you can't trust or believe the person making the statement then it hurts whatever point they're trying to make, whether it's valid or not. >The hypocrisy angle is just smoke. If I don't trust you, then why should I believe what you're saying? It's not just smoke. >As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >because people *remember* them. So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? They do bring up smoking afterall? I don't think so. Botch

2003-01-10 18:39:50-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for >yourself or the right thing for everyone. When ever I move (on average, >once a year I change cities because of my job) I make SURE I am moving >some place I can access easy, reliable public transportation. I >currently live 2 blocks from a commuter train station and 4 blocks from >a trolley. Trolley takes me to the grocery store and other errands as >quickly as driving and looking for parking would, and the commuter train >gets me with in 6 blocks of my work, on average faster than it would be >driving through rush-hour. People from my work are always saying things >like that to me "I'd take the train if I could but it would take me so >long, I'd have to change trains, etc" - maybe they should have thought >of that when they were looking for a house/apartment. (We all move >frequently in this company) Around here public transportation is so bad there is no suchy place. I rode mass transportation for many many years, there were many times when I would walk upwards of 20 miles faster than that "mass transit" would get me anywhere. Personally I wouldn't live within walking distance of many places where I worked if you paid me. Around here the Mass Transit works so badly that it is not worth using. . ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-10 18:39:50-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >It all comes down to making a decision to do the right thing for >yourself or the right thing for everyone. When ever I move (on average, >once a year I change cities because of my job) I make SURE I am moving >some place I can access easy, reliable public transportation. I >currently live 2 blocks from a commuter train station and 4 blocks from >a trolley. Trolley takes me to the grocery store and other errands as >quickly as driving and looking for parking would, and the commuter train >gets me with in 6 blocks of my work, on average faster than it would be >driving through rush-hour. People from my work are always saying things >like that to me "I'd take the train if I could but it would take me so >long, I'd have to change trains, etc" - maybe they should have thought >of that when they were looking for a house/apartment. (We all move >frequently in this company) Around here public transportation is so bad there is no suchy place. I rode mass transportation for many many years, there were many times when I would walk upwards of 20 miles faster than that "mass transit" would get me anywhere. Personally I wouldn't live within walking distance of many places where I worked if you paid me. Around here the Mass Transit works so badly that it is not worth using. . ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-10 18:45:18-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it looks >just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility >hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every >else's energy habits. Around here there are some energy efficient houses and you can't tell the difference. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-10 18:45:18-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >I've seen his home. If it's some special "no heat needed" home, it looks >just like all the others on his block, complete with the utility >hookups. I made a point of looking given his whining stance on every >else's energy habits. Around here there are some energy efficient houses and you can't tell the difference. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-10 18:55:48-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >I just put mine in my office. Been there, done that. Some bikes still get stolen from the office. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-10 18:55:48-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >I just put mine in my office. Been there, done that. Some bikes still get stolen from the office. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-10 19:13:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com>)


"Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" wrote: ... There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s > >behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: you > >could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch it > >burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. > > Friend of mine in HS had a 69 AMC Rebel, all steel. Had a headon with > a Toyota, totalling the Toyota and not even breaking a headlight on > the Rebel. Finally we managed to give it a dent in the rear passenger > door by skidding sideways into a 5 foot boulder at 60mph. In the early '70s my brother was driving the family hand-me-down '64 Ford Galaxie in college - pulling out of a parking spot he was hit by some guy in his new (American) car speeding through the lot - smashed up the other guy's car, and my brother's car wasn't scratched - but a big chunk of Midwestern snow-salt rust dropped out of the quarter panel. Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the road. VMacek

2003-01-10 19:13:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com>)


"Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" wrote: ... There is nothing much safer to drive than one of those 60s > >behemoths that has been kept in good shape by some rich old wrinklie: you > >could go head to head with an SUV and drive over it or under it and watch it > >burning behind you in your unbroken rear view mirror. > > Friend of mine in HS had a 69 AMC Rebel, all steel. Had a headon with > a Toyota, totalling the Toyota and not even breaking a headlight on > the Rebel. Finally we managed to give it a dent in the rear passenger > door by skidding sideways into a 5 foot boulder at 60mph. In the early '70s my brother was driving the family hand-me-down '64 Ford Galaxie in college - pulling out of a parking spot he was hit by some guy in his new (American) car speeding through the lot - smashed up the other guy's car, and my brother's car wasn't scratched - but a big chunk of Midwestern snow-salt rust dropped out of the quarter panel. Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the road. VMacek

2003-01-10 19:36:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>>> >>> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >>> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >>> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >>> >>> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >>> I was rear ended. >> >>Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >>tank. Actually, a tank is much less likely to roll over when struck. Many of the larger SUVs tend to be top-heavy and more prone to rollover than, for example, my family wagon. And the front end of a Corolla will crumple and absorb impact as well as an Explorer (and Corollas are not ugly) >I don't off road, but I do haul a lot of stuff (furniture, lumber, >computers) and have to carry more than 3 passengers a lot of the time, >plus being a very large individual, the SUV I have is one of the only >vehicles I can comfortably get behind the wheel of Not that I have a problem with you owning a 4x4, but most of the roomy vehicles you speak of also come in 4x2, much less expensive to purchase and operate , not to mention the superior visibility, and very useful 4wd for when it snows around here I don't live in a snowy environment so I don't really have a perspective on that. As for visibility, I miss the old days when minivans and SUVs were not yet popular and I could see more than 2 vehicles ahead of me on the freeway. Some vehicles are just better than others. I'd rather have a Volvo than a Chrysler anyday. I'd rather have a Schwinn than a Chrysler. The most important component of economy or safety though is the driver. Anyone watching Buffy career around in Mom's Jeep can easily see that.

2003-01-10 19:36:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>>> >>> >And why do you need an SUV? You do alot of off-roading? >>> After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >>> rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >>> >>> I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >>> I was rear ended. >> >>Finally, the only damn good reason to own a SUV. It's like driving a >>tank. Actually, a tank is much less likely to roll over when struck. Many of the larger SUVs tend to be top-heavy and more prone to rollover than, for example, my family wagon. And the front end of a Corolla will crumple and absorb impact as well as an Explorer (and Corollas are not ugly) >I don't off road, but I do haul a lot of stuff (furniture, lumber, >computers) and have to carry more than 3 passengers a lot of the time, >plus being a very large individual, the SUV I have is one of the only >vehicles I can comfortably get behind the wheel of Not that I have a problem with you owning a 4x4, but most of the roomy vehicles you speak of also come in 4x2, much less expensive to purchase and operate , not to mention the superior visibility, and very useful 4wd for when it snows around here I don't live in a snowy environment so I don't really have a perspective on that. As for visibility, I miss the old days when minivans and SUVs were not yet popular and I could see more than 2 vehicles ahead of me on the freeway. Some vehicles are just better than others. I'd rather have a Volvo than a Chrysler anyday. I'd rather have a Schwinn than a Chrysler. The most important component of economy or safety though is the driver. Anyone watching Buffy career around in Mom's Jeep can easily see that.

2003-01-10 19:54:03+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >So, you are claiming that a 2wd SUV gets better mileage than a 4wd SUV >in 2wd mode? > > >-- >Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org >http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org >"If God had meant for us to be naked, we'd have been born that way." - >Mark Twain (hee hee!) Yes, actually. When I was under civilian contract to the army one of the things we did was track milage and expense for each vehicle. 4x4 vehicles use more fuel. Same model, same duties, different drive train, different fuel comsumption. This doesn't make you a bad person. As long as you are paying for your own fuel with your own money it's fine with me. And no, the difference wasn't huge, but it was real and it was consistent.

2003-01-10 19:54:03+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >So, you are claiming that a 2wd SUV gets better mileage than a 4wd SUV >in 2wd mode? > > >-- >Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org >http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org >"If God had meant for us to be naked, we'd have been born that way." - >Mark Twain (hee hee!) Yes, actually. When I was under civilian contract to the army one of the things we did was track milage and expense for each vehicle. 4x4 vehicles use more fuel. Same model, same duties, different drive train, different fuel comsumption. This doesn't make you a bad person. As long as you are paying for your own fuel with your own money it's fine with me. And no, the difference wasn't huge, but it was real and it was consistent.

2003-01-10 20:04:54-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>> > >No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >Ed Bagley Jr. Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. The hypocrisy angle is just smoke. As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, because people *remember* them. -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-10 20:04:54-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>> > >No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >Ed Bagley Jr. Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. The hypocrisy angle is just smoke. As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, because people *remember* them. -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-10 20:26:28+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>> >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, >> >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). >> >> >I just put mine in my office. >> >> Along with the goat. > >Huh? It's a joke about the developments on "West Wing". Just smile and nod.

2003-01-10 20:26:28+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>> >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, >> >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). >> >> >I just put mine in my office. >> >> Along with the goat. > >Huh? It's a joke about the developments on "West Wing". Just smile and nod.

2003-01-10 20:33:15+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving >cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private >jet deserves to be excoriated. > >I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family >members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while >living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. Oil-drenched luxury. I get all tingly just thinking about it.

2003-01-10 20:33:15+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving >cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private >jet deserves to be excoriated. > >I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family >members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while >living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. Oil-drenched luxury. I get all tingly just thinking about it.

2003-01-10 21:26:03+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-5FBF6B.14300710012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > As for Leno, it's a commonly-known fact that his cars aren't > just collector's showpieces that sit in the garage and never > see the light of day. The man own dozens of vehicles and drives > them all. At once? > His staff jokes that he drives a different car to > work every day and it's months before they see a repeat. In that case I'd wager he wastes no more oil owning dozens of vehicles than he would have owning only 1. -Dan Damouth

2003-01-10 21:26:03+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:BTR1702-5FBF6B.14300710012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > As for Leno, it's a commonly-known fact that his cars aren't > just collector's showpieces that sit in the garage and never > see the light of day. The man own dozens of vehicles and drives > them all. At once? > His staff jokes that he drives a different car to > work every day and it's months before they see a repeat. In that case I'd wager he wastes no more oil owning dozens of vehicles than he would have owning only 1. -Dan Damouth

2003-01-10 21:32:09+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >"Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead >oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using >PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? > >All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've >taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. What does the second S stand for? Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling.

2003-01-10 21:32:09+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >"Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead >oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using >PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? > >All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've >taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. What does the second S stand for? Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling.

2003-01-10 22:04:49+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>>Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. > >How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or guffawing. I >suppose I could chortle instead. Tittering is fine. Even Prince Charles titters sometimes.

2003-01-10 22:04:49+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


>>Try not to giggle. Deep academia does not support giggling. > >How bout tittering? I don't really feel like chuckling or guffawing. I >suppose I could chortle instead. Tittering is fine. Even Prince Charles titters sometimes.

2003-01-10 22:05:59-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> >It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >some way. Absolutely. If you start to think about stuff that we make out of petrochemicals, pretty much everybody is involved. But from a rhetorical standpoint, this is GOOD. We're adding complications to our discussion of the situation. The dialog pushed out by the White House is so lowest-common-denominator as to be useless. It's a complicated situation -- a heck of a lot more complex than "We are good, they are evil." > >Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >9/11). Oh, it's not some faceless mass of "PC thugs". Ariana Huffington explicitly has a thing about SUVs. She's been writing about them for months in Salon. SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was always my big gripe when I had a car. And they *are* gas guzzlers. They're trucks, after all. -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-10 22:05:59-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: >On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> >It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >some way. Absolutely. If you start to think about stuff that we make out of petrochemicals, pretty much everybody is involved. But from a rhetorical standpoint, this is GOOD. We're adding complications to our discussion of the situation. The dialog pushed out by the White House is so lowest-common-denominator as to be useless. It's a complicated situation -- a heck of a lot more complex than "We are good, they are evil." > >Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >9/11). Oh, it's not some faceless mass of "PC thugs". Ariana Huffington explicitly has a thing about SUVs. She's been writing about them for months in Salon. SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was always my big gripe when I had a car. And they *are* gas guzzlers. They're trucks, after all. -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-10 22:39:32-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >> >>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>>> >>> >>>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>>Ed Bagley Jr. >> >> >> >>Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >>for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. > >I agree > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > >If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into >question the validity of their statement and why their making it. What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she preaches. Oh -- she's not totally green so she has no room to talk? If that's the criteria, *no one* in Amurka really has the cred to produce such a commercial. Private jet = hypocrisy? If it was the owner/user of 1 private jet denouncing 1 SUV I'd agree. In the course of a given month, she takes how many trips in her alleged jet? 4? 10? How much fuel does one jet use to do that? I have no idea, but I'm willing to gamble it's substantially less than the amount of gas used during the course of that same month by the 760,000 SUVs registered in Washington state alone. (It was the statistic that came most readily to hand: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/59106_suvtable22.shtml) Then there's California: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/viuspr/97tvprca.pdf (figures for 1997! show 8 million SUVs + minivans + pickups in California) A very conservative extrapolation from the above figures leads to the estimate that are at least 20 *MILLION* SUVs on the road in the US. SUVs typically get less than 10 miles / gallon. How much gasoline do those suckers use? And how much could be saved if those people were driving cars that get 40 MPG instead? *That*, my darling dears, is the point. > >>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>because people *remember* them. > >So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? >They do bring up smoking afterall? > The anti-smoking commercials are good for the people who want you to stop smoking. The anti-SUV ads are good because every time someone with a big ol SUV has to fill the tank up again, they're gonna think about that ad and how much it bugs them. These things take time, and a majority of our country is pretty inert when it comes to issues of ecology and the ways that those issues mesh with world economics and politics. Just given human nature, I'll bet that the SUV owners won't change their minds because of this ad campaign -- but it'll make their kids think. -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-10 22:39:32-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >> >>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>>> >>> >>>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>>Ed Bagley Jr. >> >> >> >>Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >>for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. > >I agree > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > >If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into >question the validity of their statement and why their making it. What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she preaches. Oh -- she's not totally green so she has no room to talk? If that's the criteria, *no one* in Amurka really has the cred to produce such a commercial. Private jet = hypocrisy? If it was the owner/user of 1 private jet denouncing 1 SUV I'd agree. In the course of a given month, she takes how many trips in her alleged jet? 4? 10? How much fuel does one jet use to do that? I have no idea, but I'm willing to gamble it's substantially less than the amount of gas used during the course of that same month by the 760,000 SUVs registered in Washington state alone. (It was the statistic that came most readily to hand: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/59106_suvtable22.shtml) Then there's California: http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/viuspr/97tvprca.pdf (figures for 1997! show 8 million SUVs + minivans + pickups in California) A very conservative extrapolation from the above figures leads to the estimate that are at least 20 *MILLION* SUVs on the road in the US. SUVs typically get less than 10 miles / gallon. How much gasoline do those suckers use? And how much could be saved if those people were driving cars that get 40 MPG instead? *That*, my darling dears, is the point. > >>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>because people *remember* them. > >So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? >They do bring up smoking afterall? > The anti-smoking commercials are good for the people who want you to stop smoking. The anti-SUV ads are good because every time someone with a big ol SUV has to fill the tank up again, they're gonna think about that ad and how much it bugs them. These things take time, and a majority of our country is pretty inert when it comes to issues of ecology and the ways that those issues mesh with world economics and politics. Just given human nature, I'll bet that the SUV owners won't change their minds because of this ad campaign -- but it'll make their kids think. -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-10 23:25:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> > > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in > some way. Well, we have little choices other than trying to change our Oil consumption politically or killing ourselves that's why the drug commercials piss me off "so, you're saying it's ok to support terrorism a little"? > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before > 9/11). Well, they've always used a lot of fuel, which equals more pollution. It's not all about terrorism. But who really cares?

2003-01-10 23:25:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Stimpson J. Cat wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> > > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in > some way. Well, we have little choices other than trying to change our Oil consumption politically or killing ourselves that's why the drug commercials piss me off "so, you're saying it's ok to support terrorism a little"? > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before > 9/11). Well, they've always used a lot of fuel, which equals more pollution. It's not all about terrorism. But who really cares?

2003-01-10 23:27:17-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Botch wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >> >> >>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>>>convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>>>you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>>> >>>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>>Ed Bagley Jr. >> >> >> >>Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >>for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. > > > I agree > > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > > > If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into > question the validity of their statement and why their making it. If > you can't trust or believe the person making the statement then it > hurts whatever point they're trying to make, whether it's valid or > not. > > >>The hypocrisy angle is just smoke. > > > If I don't trust you, then why should I believe what you're saying? > It's not just smoke. > > > >>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>because people *remember* them. > > > So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? > They do bring up smoking afterall? > > I don't think so. Actually, they do. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure someone can. I read an article very recently about tobacco sales going up w/ teenagers - the commercials make them feel smoking is more rebellious.

2003-01-10 23:27:17-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Botch wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >> >> >>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>>>convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>>>you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>>> >>>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>>Ed Bagley Jr. >> >> >> >>Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >>for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. > > > I agree > > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > > > If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into > question the validity of their statement and why their making it. If > you can't trust or believe the person making the statement then it > hurts whatever point they're trying to make, whether it's valid or > not. > > >>The hypocrisy angle is just smoke. > > > If I don't trust you, then why should I believe what you're saying? > It's not just smoke. > > > >>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>because people *remember* them. > > > So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? > They do bring up smoking afterall? > > I don't think so. Actually, they do. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure someone can. I read an article very recently about tobacco sales going up w/ teenagers - the commercials make them feel smoking is more rebellious.

2003-01-11 00:48:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 9 Jan 2003 20:12:12 -0600, Don Sample wrote: > In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw > <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > > > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. > > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > > > > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what > > ma I missing? > > The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by > trafficing in drugs. Using this logic, the most sane thing to do in the "war on terrorism" would be to legalize all drug sales, therefore decimating the terrorist funding through illegal trafficing. If you can buy your dope, cocaine and heroine from the local store, and it is grown on American farms by hard working Amercians, the terrorists are cut out of the loop! They could make a compaign about buying drugs that are "made in the USA" as being something patriotic! We could put little US flag on the joints. Light one up for Uncle Sam! The war on drugs is funding the terrorism, not the drug users! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-01-11 00:48:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Mathew R. Ignash" <mathewignash@comcast.net>)


On 9 Jan 2003 20:12:12 -0600, Don Sample wrote: > In article <d9f58d9d.0301091804.20d72405@posting.google.com>, dw > <DrWoodardOnDS@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me how buying drugs supports terrorism? > > > > You buy drugs from a local seller who buys it from drug people in > > Columbia. Where does the Terrorism aspect come in? > > > > You buy drugs from someone local created the drugs in their own home. > > Again where does the terrorist aspect come in? > > > > I don't use drugs so I have to ask, as someone who doesn't use drugs what > > ma I missing? > > The idea is that many terrorist organizations fund themselves by > trafficing in drugs. Using this logic, the most sane thing to do in the "war on terrorism" would be to legalize all drug sales, therefore decimating the terrorist funding through illegal trafficing. If you can buy your dope, cocaine and heroine from the local store, and it is grown on American farms by hard working Amercians, the terrorists are cut out of the loop! They could make a compaign about buying drugs that are "made in the USA" as being something patriotic! We could put little US flag on the joints. Light one up for Uncle Sam! The war on drugs is funding the terrorism, not the drug users! -- Mathew Homepage - http://mathew.fcpages.com/ Angel web site - http://angel.fcpages.com/

2003-01-11 00:49:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie > ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: > >> > >> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >> >wrote: > >> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms > >> >>of need to anyone. > >> > > >> >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is > >> >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. > >> > >> > >> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a > >> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make > >> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. > > > >Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in > >that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the > >rest of us how to live. > > Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? For them? Absolutely.

2003-01-11 00:49:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >In article <qhvt1vknaq5ngv45t4ntbmauf8e1prpc1q@4ax.com>, Ebie > ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Thus spake Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday>: > >> > >> >On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 18:39:23 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >> >wrote: > >> >>But that's irrelevant also. I don't have to justify my car in terms > >> >>of need to anyone. > >> > > >> >Thats the issue in a sentence. Nobodys damn business. No PC thug is > >> >going to tell me what I can drive. Period. > >> > >> > >> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a > >> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make > >> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. > > > >Yeah, but not the way it was intended. It made me "uncomfortable" in > >that yet again some puffed-up Hollywood windbags are trying to tell the > >rest of us how to live. > > Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? For them? Absolutely.

2003-01-11 00:57:05-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <p9eu1voc8emct1mclbfjl0hrcml67cmldi@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >> > >> > > >> >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >> >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >> > > >> >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > >> > >> > >> But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > >> massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > >> countries? > >> > >> Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > > > >Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving > >cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private > >jet deserves to be excoriated. > >I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > >members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > >living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > "Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead > oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using > PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? My point is, however oil-drenched *my* life may be, hers is 10 times more so. > All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've > taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. It made me pissed off, sure. Defensive? Not hardly. I got just as pissed off when Barbra Streisand made a big deal out of telling everyone they should wash their dishes by hand, dry their laundry on a clothes line and turn their air conditioners off during the summer time. This from a woman who has most likely not washed a dish or a piece of clothing (by hand or otherwise) for decades, who requires rose petals in her toilet water wherever she goes and who owns a sprawling Malibu mansion and multiple other luxury homes all around the world. When asked by the press if Ms. Streisand was taking these steps herself, her PR hack actually admitted that Streisand didn't mean that she would do these things herself, just that everyone else ought to do them. At least she doesn't hide the ball: she's an elitist and she admits it. Heaven forbid her ass should stop smelling like roses for even an instant. Just so we're clear, the "message" of oil/terrorism didn't piss me off. It's the fact that yet another set of pampered Hollywood elitists are coming down off the mountaintop to preach to the rest of us how we ought to live our lives.

2003-01-11 00:57:05-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <p9eu1voc8emct1mclbfjl0hrcml67cmldi@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >> > >> > > >> >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >> >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >> > > >> >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > >> > >> > >> But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > >> massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > >> countries? > >> > >> Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > > > >Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving > >cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private > >jet deserves to be excoriated. > >I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > >members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > >living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > "Oil-drenched luxury"? <giggle>. Most people in the USSA lead > oil-drenched lives of luxury, even if we don't drive. Such as using > PLASTICS. Don't those come from petroleum, at least partially? My point is, however oil-drenched *my* life may be, hers is 10 times more so. > All I can see is, the ad made you defensive and pissed-off, and you've > taken it extremely personally, so it seems like a successful campaign. It made me pissed off, sure. Defensive? Not hardly. I got just as pissed off when Barbra Streisand made a big deal out of telling everyone they should wash their dishes by hand, dry their laundry on a clothes line and turn their air conditioners off during the summer time. This from a woman who has most likely not washed a dish or a piece of clothing (by hand or otherwise) for decades, who requires rose petals in her toilet water wherever she goes and who owns a sprawling Malibu mansion and multiple other luxury homes all around the world. When asked by the press if Ms. Streisand was taking these steps herself, her PR hack actually admitted that Streisand didn't mean that she would do these things herself, just that everyone else ought to do them. At least she doesn't hide the ball: she's an elitist and she admits it. Heaven forbid her ass should stop smelling like roses for even an instant. Just so we're clear, the "message" of oil/terrorism didn't piss me off. It's the fact that yet another set of pampered Hollywood elitists are coming down off the mountaintop to preach to the rest of us how we ought to live our lives.

2003-01-11 01:00:29-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1F312A.80504@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > > <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >>> > >>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > >>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > >>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > >>countries? > >> > >>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > > Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving > > cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private > > jet deserves to be excoriated. > > > > I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > > members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > > living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > > > > Nauseating. > > Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the people" > don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. That's what they are for. The function of Hollywood celebrities is not to preach to me how I should live. If they want to do that, then they should walk the walk first. > I'd like to think if I was rich I still wouldn't waste resources, but > maybe I would. Maybe the lure of "oil-drenched luxury" is just too > strong to fight. Then they should just shut up. If they can't live like they want me to live, they should keep their nonsense to themselves.

2003-01-11 01:00:29-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1F312A.80504@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > > <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >>> > >>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > >>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > >>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > >>countries? > >> > >>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > > Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving > > cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private > > jet deserves to be excoriated. > > > > I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > > members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > > living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > > > > Nauseating. > > Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the people" > don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. That's what they are for. The function of Hollywood celebrities is not to preach to me how I should live. If they want to do that, then they should walk the walk first. > I'd like to think if I was rich I still wouldn't waste resources, but > maybe I would. Maybe the lure of "oil-drenched luxury" is just too > strong to fight. Then they should just shut up. If they can't live like they want me to live, they should keep their nonsense to themselves.

2003-01-11 01:02:10-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1F3F85.833CEF7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > > > > > And you know this how? > > > > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > > > > > > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person > > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood > > that something is the case. > > Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying > desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. Quit while > you're behind, already. Yeah, right. You claim Lear's cars are probably collectors pieces and when asked what shred of evidence you have for that statement, you provide none. And you say *I'm* in a corner? Wow.

2003-01-11 01:02:10-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1F3F85.833CEF7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > > In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > > > > > And you know this how? > > > > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > > > > > > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person > > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood > > that something is the case. > > Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying > desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. Quit while > you're behind, already. Yeah, right. You claim Lear's cars are probably collectors pieces and when asked what shred of evidence you have for that statement, you provide none. And you say *I'm* in a corner? Wow.

2003-01-11 01:03:49-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <Xns92FF88AA46DBDamouth@66.75.162.196>, Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com> wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in > news:BTR1702-5FBF6B.14300710012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > > > As for Leno, it's a commonly-known fact that his cars aren't > > just collector's showpieces that sit in the garage and never > > see the light of day. The man own dozens of vehicles and drives > > them all. > > At once? > > > His staff jokes that he drives a different car to > > work every day and it's months before they see a repeat. > > In that case I'd wager he wastes no more oil owning dozens of > vehicles than he would have owning only 1. I'm not criticizing Leno at all. If he wants to buy hundreds of cars, more power to him. I think it's great. The big difference is that Leno isn't buying ad space all over America calling people who also enjoy cars just like he does terrorists. Leno isn't a hypocrite.

2003-01-11 01:03:49-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <Xns92FF88AA46DBDamouth@66.75.162.196>, Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com> wrote: > BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in > news:BTR1702-5FBF6B.14300710012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com: > > > As for Leno, it's a commonly-known fact that his cars aren't > > just collector's showpieces that sit in the garage and never > > see the light of day. The man own dozens of vehicles and drives > > them all. > > At once? > > > His staff jokes that he drives a different car to > > work every day and it's months before they see a repeat. > > In that case I'd wager he wastes no more oil owning dozens of > vehicles than he would have owning only 1. I'm not criticizing Leno at all. If he wants to buy hundreds of cars, more power to him. I think it's great. The big difference is that Leno isn't buying ad space all over America calling people who also enjoy cars just like he does terrorists. Leno isn't a hypocrite.

2003-01-11 01:05:52-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <r2fu1v0r6kram0pcc294b55njpu8oc1ega@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > > > >> Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy > >> in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. > > > >No, no, no and I already do. > > > (A) Foreign oil funds terrorists. Wrong. Not all foreign oil funds terrorists. Several American oil companies do not buy oil from the Middle East. They buy it from South America or Russia or pump it domestically. Citgo is one company that is completely Mid-East free. Your premise if flawed. The rest of your "exercise" is moot. > (B) All Americans, not just BTR1701, use foreign oil, either directly > (purchase of gasoline) or indirectly (e.g. use of plastics; use of > services based on internal-combustion engines, such as public busses > and airplanes; ). > (C) BTR1701 is an American > (D) [left as an exercise for the student]

2003-01-11 01:05:52-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <r2fu1v0r6kram0pcc294b55njpu8oc1ega@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > > > >> Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy > >> in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. > > > >No, no, no and I already do. > > > (A) Foreign oil funds terrorists. Wrong. Not all foreign oil funds terrorists. Several American oil companies do not buy oil from the Middle East. They buy it from South America or Russia or pump it domestically. Citgo is one company that is completely Mid-East free. Your premise if flawed. The rest of your "exercise" is moot. > (B) All Americans, not just BTR1701, use foreign oil, either directly > (purchase of gasoline) or indirectly (e.g. use of plastics; use of > services based on internal-combustion engines, such as public busses > and airplanes; ). > (C) BTR1701 is an American > (D) [left as an exercise for the student]

2003-01-11 01:09:34+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 10 Jan 2003 14:52:55 -0800, eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) wrote: > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > 99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and flustered. By comparison, you take the L in, you can get anywhere in the loop quickly and easily. You are FREE from your car. Not to mention that if you are coming from the outer city/subarbs, the L will get you downtown probably twice as fast as your car, as the expressways are often parking lots. You are correct overall though. You especially have a good point about carrying things. And outside of Chicago and New York, I am not certain that public transit is really a consistent advantage to the commuter. I used to ride the bus alot in Orange County, CA - but only because I was to young to drive. I find the metra and CTA systems in chicago are awesome. Other cities have pathetic public transportation, though. Even in Chicagoland, I drive my car to a "park and ride", or a Metra train station. Stimpson

2003-01-11 01:09:34+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On 10 Jan 2003 14:52:55 -0800, eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) wrote: > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > 99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and flustered. By comparison, you take the L in, you can get anywhere in the loop quickly and easily. You are FREE from your car. Not to mention that if you are coming from the outer city/subarbs, the L will get you downtown probably twice as fast as your car, as the expressways are often parking lots. You are correct overall though. You especially have a good point about carrying things. And outside of Chicago and New York, I am not certain that public transit is really a consistent advantage to the commuter. I used to ride the bus alot in Orange County, CA - but only because I was to young to drive. I find the metra and CTA systems in chicago are awesome. Other cities have pathetic public transportation, though. Even in Chicagoland, I drive my car to a "park and ride", or a Metra train station. Stimpson

2003-01-11 01:18:24-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <8anu1vcu6uhv6qdb94d63gokogso615hq1@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >I just put mine in my office. > Been there, done that. Some bikes still get stolen from > the office. LOL! Well, maybe. But not our office. It's rather... secure.

2003-01-11 01:18:24-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <8anu1vcu6uhv6qdb94d63gokogso615hq1@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >I just put mine in my office. > Been there, done that. Some bikes still get stolen from > the office. LOL! Well, maybe. But not our office. It's rather... secure.

2003-01-11 01:23:42-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <ph2v1v8c9n1fi0r38makecfdcljf50vi83@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: > >If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into > >question the validity of their statement and why their making it. > > What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she > preaches. No, she just jets around the country in Learjets. Much more fuel efficient than an SUV, right? Tell me another one. > Oh -- she's not totally green so she has no room to talk? If that's > the criteria, *no one* in Amurka really has the cred to produce such a > commercial. > > Private jet = hypocrisy? If it was the owner/user of 1 private jet > denouncing 1 SUV I'd agree. > > In the course of a given month, she takes how many trips in her > alleged jet? 4? 10? How much fuel does one jet use to do that? > > I have no idea, but I'm willing to gamble it's substantially less than > the amount of gas used during the course of that same month by the > 760,000 SUVs registered in Washington state alone. Well, I don't drive 760,000 SUVs. I only drive one. And only then once a week or so. So to me, the woman is a hypocrite. She doesn't get a pass just because she's speaking to a large audience. > >>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that > >>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. > >>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, > >>because people *remember* them. > > > >So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? > >They do bring up smoking afterall? > > > > The anti-smoking commercials are good for the people who want you to > stop smoking. The anti-SUV ads are good because every time someone > with a big ol SUV has to fill the tank up again, they're gonna think > about that ad and how much it bugs them. No, every time I see some Hollywood windbag telling me how to live, that's when I'll think about that ad and how much it bugs me.

2003-01-11 01:23:42-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <ph2v1v8c9n1fi0r38makecfdcljf50vi83@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: > >If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into > >question the validity of their statement and why their making it. > > What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she > preaches. No, she just jets around the country in Learjets. Much more fuel efficient than an SUV, right? Tell me another one. > Oh -- she's not totally green so she has no room to talk? If that's > the criteria, *no one* in Amurka really has the cred to produce such a > commercial. > > Private jet = hypocrisy? If it was the owner/user of 1 private jet > denouncing 1 SUV I'd agree. > > In the course of a given month, she takes how many trips in her > alleged jet? 4? 10? How much fuel does one jet use to do that? > > I have no idea, but I'm willing to gamble it's substantially less than > the amount of gas used during the course of that same month by the > 760,000 SUVs registered in Washington state alone. Well, I don't drive 760,000 SUVs. I only drive one. And only then once a week or so. So to me, the woman is a hypocrite. She doesn't get a pass just because she's speaking to a large audience. > >>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that > >>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. > >>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, > >>because people *remember* them. > > > >So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? > >They do bring up smoking afterall? > > > > The anti-smoking commercials are good for the people who want you to > stop smoking. The anti-SUV ads are good because every time someone > with a big ol SUV has to fill the tank up again, they're gonna think > about that ad and how much it bugs them. No, every time I see some Hollywood windbag telling me how to live, that's when I'll think about that ad and how much it bugs me.

2003-01-11 01:26:26-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <932v1vg5m6pmec1i571a2mf0mrf5ng3abq@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas > guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was > always my big gripe when I had a car. Well, so are RVs, pickups and 18-wheel trucks. Getting rid of SUVs won't solve that problem either. Changing lanes might, though.

2003-01-11 01:26:26-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <932v1vg5m6pmec1i571a2mf0mrf5ng3abq@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas > guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was > always my big gripe when I had a car. Well, so are RVs, pickups and 18-wheel trucks. Getting rid of SUVs won't solve that problem either. Changing lanes might, though.

2003-01-11 01:26:39+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in some way. Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. Stimpson

2003-01-11 01:26:39+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in some way. Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. Stimpson

2003-01-11 01:31:45-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether sillyman@famous.com rose up and issued forth: >Not that I have a problem with you owning a 4x4, but most of the roomy >vehicles you speak of also come in 4x2, much less expensive to >purchase and operate > The only full time 4wd vehicles I have ever encountered were cars, not trucks (I recall occasionally hearing "full time 4 wheel drive" in tv ads, but never encountered any in a real truck I have looked at for sale, just stuff like the AMC Talon AWD, most Audis, and a number of Honda types of vehicles). All the pickups and SUVs I have owned/driven all had both 4wd and 2wd, and the 4wd was not for normal dry paved surfaces. I wouldn't particularly want a vehicle that was 4wd all the time. Don't need it. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "Maybe love shouldn't be so much work." - Dorothy Boyd, "Jerry McGuire"

2003-01-11 01:31:45-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether sillyman@famous.com rose up and issued forth: >Not that I have a problem with you owning a 4x4, but most of the roomy >vehicles you speak of also come in 4x2, much less expensive to >purchase and operate > The only full time 4wd vehicles I have ever encountered were cars, not trucks (I recall occasionally hearing "full time 4 wheel drive" in tv ads, but never encountered any in a real truck I have looked at for sale, just stuff like the AMC Talon AWD, most Audis, and a number of Honda types of vehicles). All the pickups and SUVs I have owned/driven all had both 4wd and 2wd, and the 4wd was not for normal dry paved surfaces. I wouldn't particularly want a vehicle that was 4wd all the time. Don't need it. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "Maybe love shouldn't be so much work." - Dorothy Boyd, "Jerry McGuire"

2003-01-11 01:39:58-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > >> BTR1701 wrote: > > > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> > garage. > >> > > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> > School > >> > of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >> least those who live in cities. > >> > >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> > >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >> valid. > > > >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > > > >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, > >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > > > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >like everyone else. > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > >his talk show, guess what he did? > > > >"I gotta go to commercial." > > Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an "environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > For all > you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind > power. Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try again. > People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space > taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own personal property.

2003-01-11 01:39:58-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > >> BTR1701 wrote: > > > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> > garage. > >> > > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> > School > >> > of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >> least those who live in cities. > >> > >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> > >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >> valid. > > > >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > > > >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, > >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > > > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >like everyone else. > > > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > >his talk show, guess what he did? > > > >"I gotta go to commercial." > > Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an "environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > For all > you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind > power. Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try again. > People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space > taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own personal property.

2003-01-11 01:42:29-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>ONLY > >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>least those who live in cities. > >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > >doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > guzzling car. How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of a person you don't even know. Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban.

2003-01-11 01:42:29-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >>ONLY > >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >>least those who live in cities. > >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > >doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > guzzling car. How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of a person you don't even know. Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban.

2003-01-11 01:48:09-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3phv1vg6tk7h01nul7fao92do1n9h30edk@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:52:13 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <090120031251207948%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > ><dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > >> In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> > garage. > >> > > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> > School of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >> Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > >> terrorism" ads. > > > >Not if you listen to the interviews Huffington has been giving on all > >the news shows. She's serious about it. > > > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > > > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > > And if there were as many of her as there were SUV buyers you would > have a good point. So Huffington gets a pass for burning huge amounts of fossil fuels vastly out of porportion to the rest of Americans merely because she's rich enough to afford it and there aren't as many people as rich as she is? And they say liberals aren't elitists.... perish the thought. > However people continue to buy these gas guzzling > monstrosities just because they reek of power. "Reek of power"? What are you smoking? > I say put a 10k SUV tax on every SUV sold. I say put a 20k tax on every controlling liberal elitist currently drawing breath.

2003-01-11 01:48:09-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3phv1vg6tk7h01nul7fao92do1n9h30edk@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:52:13 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <090120031251207948%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample > ><dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > > > >> In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 > >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> > > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> > > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> > garage. > >> > > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> > School of Social Hypocrisy. > >> > >> Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports > >> terrorism" ads. > > > >Not if you listen to the interviews Huffington has been giving on all > >the news shows. She's serious about it. > > > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > > > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > > And if there were as many of her as there were SUV buyers you would > have a good point. So Huffington gets a pass for burning huge amounts of fossil fuels vastly out of porportion to the rest of Americans merely because she's rich enough to afford it and there aren't as many people as rich as she is? And they say liberals aren't elitists.... perish the thought. > However people continue to buy these gas guzzling > monstrosities just because they reek of power. "Reek of power"? What are you smoking? > I say put a 10k SUV tax on every SUV sold. I say put a 20k tax on every controlling liberal elitist currently drawing breath.

2003-01-11 02:46:53-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1F312A.80504@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie >>><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >>>>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >>> > >>>>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >>>>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? >>>>> >>>>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. >>>> > >>>>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's >>>>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC >>>>countries? >>>> >>>>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? >>> > >>>Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving >>>cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private >>>jet deserves to be excoriated. >>> >>>I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family >>>members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while >>>living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. >>> >>>Nauseating. >> >>Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the people" >>don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. > > > That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. > That's what they are for. yeah, and they are all selfish assholes too.... so, what's your point?

2003-01-11 02:46:53-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1F312A.80504@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >>BTR1701 wrote: >> >>>In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie >>><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >>>>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >>> > >>>>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >>>>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? >>>>> >>>>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. >>>> > >>>>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's >>>>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC >>>>countries? >>>> >>>>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? >>> > >>>Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for driving >>>cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a private >>>jet deserves to be excoriated. >>> >>>I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family >>>members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while >>>living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. >>> >>>Nauseating. >> >>Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the people" >>don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. > > > That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. > That's what they are for. yeah, and they are all selfish assholes too.... so, what's your point?

2003-01-11 03:04:46-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <BTR1702-C82C86.14245610012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >> BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, >> >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). >> >I just put mine in my office. >> Along with the goat. >Huh? Come on, we both watch the West Wing. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-11 03:04:46-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <BTR1702-C82C86.14245610012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >> BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> There is also the issue of bicycle thefts. (And yes, >> >> Bikes are stolen even with Kryptonite locks). >> >I just put mine in my office. >> Along with the goat. >Huh? Come on, we both watch the West Wing. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-11 03:27:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:05:59 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas >guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was >always my big gripe when I had a car. > >And they *are* gas guzzlers. They're trucks, after all. They annoy me too. Mostly because of the visibilty issue you mentioned. I do not drive an SUV, as I just cannot justify the gas expense, and many of the streets I drive on are narrow even for my car. Stimpson

2003-01-11 03:27:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:05:59 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas >guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was >always my big gripe when I had a car. > >And they *are* gas guzzlers. They're trucks, after all. They annoy me too. Mostly because of the visibilty issue you mentioned. I do not drive an SUV, as I just cannot justify the gas expense, and many of the streets I drive on are narrow even for my car. Stimpson

2003-01-11 04:34:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-11 04:34:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-11 04:42:27+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-11 04:42:27+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-11 04:43:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:25:19 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >Well, we have little choices other than trying to change our Oil >consumption politically or killing ourselves Yeah. Actually, we could make the consequences of terrorism so severe that people will not engage in it against the USA. This has worked pretty good so far. > >that's why the drug commercials piss me off "so, you're saying it's ok >to support terrorism a little"? Like so many others have said: If you grow pot yourself, it does not support terrorism. I think this is the trend of the future for dope smokers, by the way. Look around on the web. It's getting popular. And no, I do not smoke MJ, in case you were wondering. > >> Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >> that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >> that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >> 9/11). > >Well, they've always used a lot of fuel, which equals more pollution. >t's not all about terrorism. But who really cares? Pollution from autos is bad in some places, but it is not the apocalyptic problem many believe. Stimpson

2003-01-11 04:43:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:25:19 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >Well, we have little choices other than trying to change our Oil >consumption politically or killing ourselves Yeah. Actually, we could make the consequences of terrorism so severe that people will not engage in it against the USA. This has worked pretty good so far. > >that's why the drug commercials piss me off "so, you're saying it's ok >to support terrorism a little"? Like so many others have said: If you grow pot yourself, it does not support terrorism. I think this is the trend of the future for dope smokers, by the way. Look around on the web. It's getting popular. And no, I do not smoke MJ, in case you were wondering. > >> Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >> that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >> that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >> 9/11). > >Well, they've always used a lot of fuel, which equals more pollution. >t's not all about terrorism. But who really cares? Pollution from autos is bad in some places, but it is not the apocalyptic problem many believe. Stimpson

2003-01-11 07:31:48+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:52:13 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <090120031251207948%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample ><dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > >> In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> > of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports >> terrorism" ads. > >Not if you listen to the interviews Huffington has been giving on all >the news shows. She's serious about it. > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. And if there were as many of her as there were SUV buyers you would have a good point. However people continue to buy these gas guzzling monstrosities just because they reek of power. I say put a 10k SUV tax on every SUV sold. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-11 07:31:48+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:52:13 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <090120031251207948%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample ><dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > >> In article <BTR1702-4D9B4F.06211709012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 >> <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> > of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> Or maybe someone is just satirising those "smoking marijuana supports >> terrorism" ads. > >Not if you listen to the interviews Huffington has been giving on all >the news shows. She's serious about it. > >I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs >aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. And if there were as many of her as there were SUV buyers you would have a good point. However people continue to buy these gas guzzling monstrosities just because they reek of power. I say put a 10k SUV tax on every SUV sold. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-11 07:31:57+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >doesn't break down which it does very often). > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas guzzling car. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-11 07:31:57+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>least those who live in cities. >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >doesn't break down which it does very often). > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas guzzling car. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-11 07:33:22+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> > of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >> am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >> public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >> least those who live in cities. >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >> valid. > >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just >like everyone else. > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on >his talk show, guess what he did? > >"I gotta go to commercial." Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? For all you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind power. People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-11 07:33:22+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> > >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> > >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car garage. >> > >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand School >> > of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >> am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >> public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >> least those who live in cities. >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >> valid. > >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just >like everyone else. > >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on >his talk show, guess what he did? > >"I gotta go to commercial." Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? For all you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind power. People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-11 07:52:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:26:26 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <932v1vg5m6pmec1i571a2mf0mrf5ng3abq@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas >> guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was >> always my big gripe when I had a car. > >Well, so are RVs, pickups and 18-wheel trucks. Getting rid of SUVs won't >solve that problem either. Changing lanes might, though. Probably not. They're in the fast lane too. I don't remember if you said you drive a big vehicle and it's fine with me if you do. It doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't make the problem go away either. RVs and Rigs impede the view just as you say and always have. It doesn't mean that taller SUVs and minivans aren't part of the problem. They are a much bigger part of that particular problem since there many more of them on the road. Visibility and being able to reasonably anticipate what is going on with the road ahead of you are huge components of road safety. This doesn't mean that SUVs are intrinsically less safe in and of themselves, driver behaviour is the biggest component of that (see my previous note about Buffy in Mom's Jeep). We all have idiot driver stories though, and combine that with decreased visibility, you get trouble.

2003-01-11 07:52:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:26:26 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <932v1vg5m6pmec1i571a2mf0mrf5ng3abq@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas >> guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was >> always my big gripe when I had a car. > >Well, so are RVs, pickups and 18-wheel trucks. Getting rid of SUVs won't >solve that problem either. Changing lanes might, though. Probably not. They're in the fast lane too. I don't remember if you said you drive a big vehicle and it's fine with me if you do. It doesn't make you a bad person. It doesn't make the problem go away either. RVs and Rigs impede the view just as you say and always have. It doesn't mean that taller SUVs and minivans aren't part of the problem. They are a much bigger part of that particular problem since there many more of them on the road. Visibility and being able to reasonably anticipate what is going on with the road ahead of you are huge components of road safety. This doesn't mean that SUVs are intrinsically less safe in and of themselves, driver behaviour is the biggest component of that (see my previous note about Buffy in Mom's Jeep). We all have idiot driver stories though, and combine that with decreased visibility, you get trouble.

2003-01-11 09:27:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:39:32 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: > >>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >>> >>>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>>>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>>>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>>>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>>>Ed Bagley Jr. >>> >>> >>> >>>Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >>>for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. >> >>I agree >> >>>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> >>If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into >>question the validity of their statement and why their making it. > >What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she >preaches. If you ride in limos instead of insisting on a fuel economy car to chaffuer you around. If you take a jet, private or not instead of taking a bus you're a hypocrite. Someone who I'd be willing to wager is less green than me trying to lecture me about what I should drive and how I should live is a hypocrite. The issue however is bigger that just her, its Streisand and her ilk. > >Oh -- she's not totally green so she has no room to talk? If that's >the criteria, *no one* in Amurka really has the cred to produce such a >commercial. She can complain all she wants, make all the commercials she wants, it doesn't exempt her from criticisim. Since when does criticism equal censorship? > >Private jet = hypocrisy? If it was the owner/user of 1 private jet >denouncing 1 SUV I'd agree. > >In the course of a given month, she takes how many trips in her >alleged jet? 4? 10? How much fuel does one jet use to do that? > >I have no idea, but I'm willing to gamble it's substantially less than >the amount of gas used during the course of that same month by the >760,000 SUVs registered in Washington state alone. (It was the >statistic that came most readily to hand: >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/59106_suvtable22.shtml) >Then there's California: >http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/viuspr/97tvprca.pdf (figures for 1997! >show 8 million SUVs + minivans + pickups in California) > >A very conservative extrapolation from the above figures leads to the >estimate that are at least 20 *MILLION* SUVs on the road in the US. So let's see, all those people who own SUV's, minivans, pickups only have them for vanity not out of necessity. No farmers need pickups, no big families need minivans or SUV's? They should all bundle into a small economy car? The minivans and SUV's have taken the place of the stationwagon who didn't do well on mpg themselves. > >SUVs typically get less than 10 miles / gallon. How much gasoline do >those suckers use? And how much could be saved if those people were >driving cars that get 40 MPG instead? And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads could be torn up to make room for parks. >*That*, my darling dears, is the point. > No the point is the same, hypocrisy. >>>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>>because people *remember* them. >> >>So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? >>They do bring up smoking afterall? >> > >The anti-smoking commercials are good for the people who want you to >stop smoking. The anti-SUV ads are good because every time someone >with a big ol SUV has to fill the tank up again, they're gonna think >about that ad and how much it bugs them. Doubtful, it was a way of getting attention in the media, and a few months from now it will fade. Peta does the same thing as well as other extremists. What it may do is influence enviromental nuts like ELF, who recently planted bombs in an SUV lot. > >These things take time, and a majority of our country is pretty inert >when it comes to issues of ecology and the ways that those issues >mesh with world economics and politics. > >Just given human nature, I'll bet that the SUV owners won't change >their minds because of this ad campaign -- but it'll make their kids >think. Then the next thing beyond the SUV will take it's place. My suggestion, to people who are so anti-SUV is to take the money that is spent protesting, making commercials and buying air time and causing a stink is to spend it on research and develop the alternative fuels, hydrogen, electric cars or whatever themselves. Since the complaint is the car and oil companies won't do it. That would be an actual solution to a problem rather than a whiny commercial. Botch

2003-01-11 09:27:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:39:32 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: > >>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >>> >>>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 16:33:51 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frchrissake kids, put all the finger-pointing behind you. SUVs are a >>>>>>> convenient example, that's all. The commercial is *supposed* to make >>>>>>> you uncomfortable. I'd say it worked. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>No it merely provoked a strong negative reaction. If you're trying to >>>>woo people to your way of thinking that's not very bright. It also >>>>helps if they practice what they preach. The only celeb I can think >>>>of who could make that silly commercial without being a hypocrite is >>>>Ed Bagley Jr. >>> >>> >>> >>>Getting all bent about the supposed hypocrisy of it is just a way to >>>for people to dismiss the message because it makes them uncomfortable. >> >>I agree >> >>>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> >>If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into >>question the validity of their statement and why their making it. > >What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she >preaches. If you ride in limos instead of insisting on a fuel economy car to chaffuer you around. If you take a jet, private or not instead of taking a bus you're a hypocrite. Someone who I'd be willing to wager is less green than me trying to lecture me about what I should drive and how I should live is a hypocrite. The issue however is bigger that just her, its Streisand and her ilk. > >Oh -- she's not totally green so she has no room to talk? If that's >the criteria, *no one* in Amurka really has the cred to produce such a >commercial. She can complain all she wants, make all the commercials she wants, it doesn't exempt her from criticisim. Since when does criticism equal censorship? > >Private jet = hypocrisy? If it was the owner/user of 1 private jet >denouncing 1 SUV I'd agree. > >In the course of a given month, she takes how many trips in her >alleged jet? 4? 10? How much fuel does one jet use to do that? > >I have no idea, but I'm willing to gamble it's substantially less than >the amount of gas used during the course of that same month by the >760,000 SUVs registered in Washington state alone. (It was the >statistic that came most readily to hand: >http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/59106_suvtable22.shtml) >Then there's California: >http://www.census.gov/prod/ec97/viuspr/97tvprca.pdf (figures for 1997! >show 8 million SUVs + minivans + pickups in California) > >A very conservative extrapolation from the above figures leads to the >estimate that are at least 20 *MILLION* SUVs on the road in the US. So let's see, all those people who own SUV's, minivans, pickups only have them for vanity not out of necessity. No farmers need pickups, no big families need minivans or SUV's? They should all bundle into a small economy car? The minivans and SUV's have taken the place of the stationwagon who didn't do well on mpg themselves. > >SUVs typically get less than 10 miles / gallon. How much gasoline do >those suckers use? And how much could be saved if those people were >driving cars that get 40 MPG instead? And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads could be torn up to make room for parks. >*That*, my darling dears, is the point. > No the point is the same, hypocrisy. >>>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>>because people *remember* them. >> >>So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? >>They do bring up smoking afterall? >> > >The anti-smoking commercials are good for the people who want you to >stop smoking. The anti-SUV ads are good because every time someone >with a big ol SUV has to fill the tank up again, they're gonna think >about that ad and how much it bugs them. Doubtful, it was a way of getting attention in the media, and a few months from now it will fade. Peta does the same thing as well as other extremists. What it may do is influence enviromental nuts like ELF, who recently planted bombs in an SUV lot. > >These things take time, and a majority of our country is pretty inert >when it comes to issues of ecology and the ways that those issues >mesh with world economics and politics. > >Just given human nature, I'll bet that the SUV owners won't change >their minds because of this ad campaign -- but it'll make their kids >think. Then the next thing beyond the SUV will take it's place. My suggestion, to people who are so anti-SUV is to take the money that is spent protesting, making commercials and buying air time and causing a stink is to spend it on research and develop the alternative fuels, hydrogen, electric cars or whatever themselves. Since the complaint is the car and oil companies won't do it. That would be an actual solution to a problem rather than a whiny commercial. Botch

2003-01-11 09:27:38+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:27:17 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >>>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>>because people *remember* them. >> >> >> So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? >> They do bring up smoking afterall? >> >> I don't think so. > > >Actually, they do. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure someone >can. I read an article very recently about tobacco sales going up w/ >teenagers - the commercials make them feel smoking is more rebellious. There weren't the anti-smoking campaigns when I was young and kids still smoked as much or more. I think if the kids mentioned the commercials as their reason for smoking they were BS'ing. Peer pressure and stupidity pretty much sums it up. Botch

2003-01-11 09:27:38+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 23:27:17 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >>>As for "a strong negative reaction" not being bright, we all know that >>>the point of advertisements is to lodge themselves into our brains. >>>Ads that people hate are still deemed to be successes by advertisers, >>>because people *remember* them. >> >> >> So anti-smoking commercials are good for the tobacco companies? >> They do bring up smoking afterall? >> >> I don't think so. > > >Actually, they do. I'm too lazy to look it up, but I'm sure someone >can. I read an article very recently about tobacco sales going up w/ >teenagers - the commercials make them feel smoking is more rebellious. There weren't the anti-smoking campaigns when I was young and kids still smoked as much or more. I think if the kids mentioned the commercials as their reason for smoking they were BS'ing. Peer pressure and stupidity pretty much sums it up. Botch

2003-01-11 09:34:09-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1FCBED.5080109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1F312A.80504@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > >>><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >>> > > > >>>>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >>>>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >>>>> > >>>>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > >>>> > > > >>>>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > >>>>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > >>>>countries? > >>>> > >>>>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > >>> > > > >>>Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for > >>>driving cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a > >>>private jet deserves to be excoriated. > >>> > >>>I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > >>>members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > >>>living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > >>> > >>>Nauseating. > >> > >>Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the > >>people" don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. > > > > > > That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. > > That's what they are for. > > yeah, and they are all selfish assholes too.... so, what's your point? Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. The function of a Hollywood celebrity is to act well and look pretty, not to preach to me about how to live. Here endeth the point.

2003-01-11 09:34:09-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E1FCBED.5080109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: > > In article <3E1F312A.80504@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > > <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>BTR1701 wrote: > >> > >>>In article <06vt1v0t9a5dt2qsmfg9cdtglj26v5nudf@4ax.com>, Ebie > >>><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > > >>>>Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >>> > > > >>>>>I wonder if it occurs to her how much gas she uses when she climbs > >>>>>aboard a private jet and flies across country? > >>>>> > >>>>>I'm gonna go out a limb and say it's more than I use in my SUV. > >>>> > > > >>>>But jeepers, do you think maybe the point is that our country's > >>>>massive oil consumption is what finances terrorists based in the OPEC > >>>>countries? > >>>> > >>>>Why excoriate her for pointing that out? > >>> > > > >>>Because she deserves it. Anyone who calls people terrorists for > >>>driving cars with low gas mileage while jetting around the country on a > >>>private jet deserves to be excoriated. > >>> > >>>I wonder if it occurs to her that many of the people who lost family > >>>members in the WTC drive SUVs. She's calling *them* terrorists while > >>>living a life of oil-drenched luxury herself. > >>> > >>>Nauseating. > >> > >>Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the > >>people" don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. > > > > > > That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. > > That's what they are for. > > yeah, and they are all selfish assholes too.... so, what's your point? Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. The function of a Hollywood celebrity is to act well and look pretty, not to preach to me about how to live. Here endeth the point.

2003-01-11 09:53:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) wrote: >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. There were many times when I would go to take Mass Transit into town and would take upwards of six hours (or more). That in my book is completely unacceptable. Not when I can drive there in 15 minutes. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 09:53:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) wrote: >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. There were many times when I would go to take Mass Transit into town and would take upwards of six hours (or more). That in my book is completely unacceptable. Not when I can drive there in 15 minutes. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 09:55:46-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car >is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago >during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are >going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, >unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of >travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not >move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and >flustered. And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 09:55:46-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car >is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago >during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are >going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, >unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of >travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not >move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and >flustered. And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:00:27-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). I can see it now: "This trip is being aborted for the following reason: the screen turns blue and a message comes up saying the system is not responding. You can wait a few minutes for the system to return or you can hit CTRL ALT DEL to restart. After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. Maybe I would be stuck in trafffic and the car gives me the message you must upgrade to continue this trip. BTW, the average car today already has more than 300 computers built in. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:00:27-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). I can see it now: "This trip is being aborted for the following reason: the screen turns blue and a message comes up saying the system is not responding. You can wait a few minutes for the system to return or you can hit CTRL ALT DEL to restart. After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. Maybe I would be stuck in trafffic and the car gives me the message you must upgrade to continue this trip. BTW, the average car today already has more than 300 computers built in. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:01:50-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need >to tip. And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to stop on a patch of ice....... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:01:50-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need >to tip. And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to stop on a patch of ice....... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:05:24-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: >You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas >guzzling car. I don't drive an SUV. A drive a mid size car that gets very good gas mileage. Largrer than a sub compact but smaller than an SUV (Mercury Sable). ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:05:24-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: >You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas >guzzling car. I don't drive an SUV. A drive a mid size car that gets very good gas mileage. Largrer than a sub compact but smaller than an SUV (Mercury Sable). ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:18:18-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Come on, we both watch the West Wing. I don't watch the west wing, is that where the Goat reference comes from? Don't watch the West Wing, I'm usually watching Twlight Zone. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:18:18-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Come on, we both watch the West Wing. I don't watch the west wing, is that where the Goat reference comes from? Don't watch the West Wing, I'm usually watching Twlight Zone. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 10:18:25-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > >to tip. > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > stop on a patch of ice....... > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 inches from the car in front of you...

2003-01-11 10:18:25-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > >to tip. > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > stop on a patch of ice....... > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 inches from the car in front of you...

2003-01-11 10:20:11-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <MbYT9.7022$qU5.5389052@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E78513.01422911012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock > > <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, > > > >>and > > > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking > > > >>pot". > I > > > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > > > >>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - > > > >>at least those who live in cities. > > > >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > > > > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > > >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > > >doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > > > > > > > > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > > > guzzling car. > > > > How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions > > about Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of > > a person you don't even know. > > > > Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several > > times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily > > in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. > > Why wouldnt she drive a "domestic" car? The aforementioned big assload of boxes.

2003-01-11 10:20:11-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <MbYT9.7022$qU5.5389052@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-E78513.01422911012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock > > <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, > > > >>and > > > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking > > > >>pot". > I > > > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > > > >>ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - > > > >>at least those who live in cities. > > > >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > > > > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > > >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > > >doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > > > > > > > > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > > > guzzling car. > > > > How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions > > about Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of > > a person you don't even know. > > > > Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several > > times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily > > in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. > > Why wouldnt she drive a "domestic" car? The aforementioned big assload of boxes.

2003-01-11 10:23:33-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <lde02v8p77hg9o9rqbuv018p6a7oo4jf5j@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie > ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? > > > >For them? Absolutely. > > > Huffington has an agenda. She hates SUVs specifically. She has a lot > of reasons. You're in the crosshairs, that's all. Squirm. If you think I'm squirming because of some silly TV ads, you're deluded. Commenting on them on Usenet does not equate to squriming.

2003-01-11 10:23:33-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <lde02v8p77hg9o9rqbuv018p6a7oo4jf5j@4ax.com>, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > > >In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie > ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > >> Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? > > > >For them? Absolutely. > > > Huffington has an agenda. She hates SUVs specifically. She has a lot > of reasons. You're in the crosshairs, that's all. Squirm. If you think I'm squirming because of some silly TV ads, you're deluded. Commenting on them on Usenet does not equate to squriming.

2003-01-11 10:27:58-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <r2fu1v0r6kram0pcc294b55njpu8oc1ega@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> > >> >> Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy >> >> in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. >> > >> >No, no, no and I already do. >> >> >> (A) Foreign oil funds terrorists. > >Wrong. Not all foreign oil funds terrorists. Several American oil >companies do not buy oil from the Middle East. They buy it from South >America or Russia or pump it domestically. Citgo is one company that is >completely Mid-East free. > >Your premise if flawed. The rest of your "exercise" is moot. Well, I'm sorry I didn't expand it sufficiently. I know that not all foreign oil funds terrorism, though apparently some does. The dragon Smaug has already flicked his tongue at me and said that it's not likely I'm going to be able to prove it here. I agree. But to the degree that it *is* true, we are, all who buy or use such oil, slightly complicit. Frankly I don't know what oil comes from where. Yet :) -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-11 10:27:58-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <r2fu1v0r6kram0pcc294b55njpu8oc1ega@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> > >> >> Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy >> >> in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. >> > >> >No, no, no and I already do. >> >> >> (A) Foreign oil funds terrorists. > >Wrong. Not all foreign oil funds terrorists. Several American oil >companies do not buy oil from the Middle East. They buy it from South >America or Russia or pump it domestically. Citgo is one company that is >completely Mid-East free. > >Your premise if flawed. The rest of your "exercise" is moot. Well, I'm sorry I didn't expand it sufficiently. I know that not all foreign oil funds terrorism, though apparently some does. The dragon Smaug has already flicked his tongue at me and said that it's not likely I'm going to be able to prove it here. I agree. But to the degree that it *is* true, we are, all who buy or use such oil, slightly complicit. Frankly I don't know what oil comes from where. Yet :) -- "...and that usually doesn't lead to hugs and puppies."

2003-01-11 10:31:06-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >Just so we're clear, the "message" of oil/terrorism didn't piss me off. That's really the only in this whole debate that matters to me -- that whatever validity this connection has not get buried under other concerns. >It's the fact that yet another set of pampered Hollywood elitists are >coming down off the mountaintop to preach to the rest of us how we ought >to live our lives. Fair enough. I'm ok with how you feel about them. -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 10:31:06-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: > >Just so we're clear, the "message" of oil/terrorism didn't piss me off. That's really the only in this whole debate that matters to me -- that whatever validity this connection has not get buried under other concerns. >It's the fact that yet another set of pampered Hollywood elitists are >coming down off the mountaintop to preach to the rest of us how we ought >to live our lives. Fair enough. I'm ok with how you feel about them. -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 10:34:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <932v1vg5m6pmec1i571a2mf0mrf5ng3abq@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas >> guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was >> always my big gripe when I had a car. > >Well, so are RVs, pickups and 18-wheel trucks. Getting rid of SUVs won't >solve that problem either. Changing lanes might, though. Ha ha. Why do you think I was trying to see around them? To pass the behemoth luxury trucks safely. The problem with the SUVs was/is that there so damn many of them. I moved out of Cali, went to NYC. Sold my car. Problem solved. -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 10:34:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <932v1vg5m6pmec1i571a2mf0mrf5ng3abq@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> SUVs bother a lot of people, and not just because they're gas >> guzzlers. They're hard to see around when you've behind one, was >> always my big gripe when I had a car. > >Well, so are RVs, pickups and 18-wheel trucks. Getting rid of SUVs won't >solve that problem either. Changing lanes might, though. Ha ha. Why do you think I was trying to see around them? To pass the behemoth luxury trucks safely. The problem with the SUVs was/is that there so damn many of them. I moved out of Cali, went to NYC. Sold my car. Problem solved. -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 10:36:57-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? > >For them? Absolutely. Huffington has an agenda. She hates SUVs specifically. She has a lot of reasons. You're in the crosshairs, that's all. Squirm. -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 10:36:57-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? > >For them? Absolutely. Huffington has an agenda. She hates SUVs specifically. She has a lot of reasons. You're in the crosshairs, that's all. Squirm. -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 10:48:38-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Riff Randall <riffrandall@rocknroll.edu>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:13:02 -0500, Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: >In the early '70s my brother was driving the family hand-me-down '64 Ford >Galaxie in college - pulling out of a parking spot he was hit by some guy in his >new (American) car speeding through the lot - smashed up the other guy's car, >and my brother's car wasn't scratched - but a big chunk of Midwestern snow-salt >rust dropped out of the quarter panel. >Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been >wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the >road. Make sure to get one with the 'Leaning Tower Of Power" slant 6....one of the most indestructable engines ever put in an auto. Chyslers are tough in general but slant 6 powered ones make their V8 sisters look like high strung garage queens.

2003-01-11 10:48:38-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Riff Randall <riffrandall@rocknroll.edu>)


On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:13:02 -0500, Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: >In the early '70s my brother was driving the family hand-me-down '64 Ford >Galaxie in college - pulling out of a parking spot he was hit by some guy in his >new (American) car speeding through the lot - smashed up the other guy's car, >and my brother's car wasn't scratched - but a big chunk of Midwestern snow-salt >rust dropped out of the quarter panel. >Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been >wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the >road. Make sure to get one with the 'Leaning Tower Of Power" slant 6....one of the most indestructable engines ever put in an auto. Chyslers are tough in general but slant 6 powered ones make their V8 sisters look like high strung garage queens.

2003-01-11 11:18:08+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:knqu1vg2oje7on7klobtivcjqdf5as2321@4ax.com... > On 10 Jan 2003 14:52:55 -0800, eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) > wrote: > > > > > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of > >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour > >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily > >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those > >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, > >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit > >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a > >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was > >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy > >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even > >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > > > 99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car > is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago > during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are > going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, > unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of > travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not > move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and > flustered. > > By comparison, you take the L in, you can get anywhere in the loop > quickly and easily. You are FREE from your car. Not to mention that if > you are coming from the outer city/subarbs, the L will get you > downtown probably twice as fast as your car, as the expressways are > often parking lots. > > You are correct overall though. You especially have a good point about > carrying things. And outside of Chicago and New York, I am not certain > that public transit is really a consistent advantage to the commuter. > I used to ride the bus alot in Orange County, CA - but only because I > was to young to drive. I find the metra and CTA systems in chicago are > awesome. Other cities have pathetic public transportation, though. > Even in Chicagoland, I drive my car to a "park and ride", or a Metra > train station. > > Stimpson > THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need to tip. Natch, the VARIETY of computer-driven vehicles could be customized for the region, from coupes, sedans, mini-vans, pickups to ATVs, "trikes" and variation of the auto-balancing segway. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 11:18:08+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:knqu1vg2oje7on7klobtivcjqdf5as2321@4ax.com... > On 10 Jan 2003 14:52:55 -0800, eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) > wrote: > > > > > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of > >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour > >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily > >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those > >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, > >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit > >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a > >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was > >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy > >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even > >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > > > 99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car > is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago > during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are > going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, > unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of > travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not > move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and > flustered. > > By comparison, you take the L in, you can get anywhere in the loop > quickly and easily. You are FREE from your car. Not to mention that if > you are coming from the outer city/subarbs, the L will get you > downtown probably twice as fast as your car, as the expressways are > often parking lots. > > You are correct overall though. You especially have a good point about > carrying things. And outside of Chicago and New York, I am not certain > that public transit is really a consistent advantage to the commuter. > I used to ride the bus alot in Orange County, CA - but only because I > was to young to drive. I find the metra and CTA systems in chicago are > awesome. Other cities have pathetic public transportation, though. > Even in Chicagoland, I drive my car to a "park and ride", or a Metra > train station. > > Stimpson > THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need to tip. Natch, the VARIETY of computer-driven vehicles could be customized for the region, from coupes, sedans, mini-vans, pickups to ATVs, "trikes" and variation of the auto-balancing segway. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 12:00:35-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean >MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall for >the hype. > >Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. But other computers do crash, freeze up, etc. And then there are the mandatory upgrades. Long before Microsoft I was using VAX 11/780s which also crashed often. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:00:35-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean >MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall for >the hype. > >Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. But other computers do crash, freeze up, etc. And then there are the mandatory upgrades. Long before Microsoft I was using VAX 11/780s which also crashed often. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:07:27-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. After living through many hard winters up here in the northland I doubt it. Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years and never grasp that fact around here. Of course the engineers who designed the car for ice driving have probably never driven on ice........ ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:07:27-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. After living through many hard winters up here in the northland I doubt it. Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years and never grasp that fact around here. Of course the engineers who designed the car for ice driving have probably never driven on ice........ ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:09:34-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways where they refused to open the door. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:09:34-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways where they refused to open the door. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:12:32-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Public Transportation depends on the region. PT tends to be best in urban >areas rather than rural. The cost / profit / benefit ratio simply doesn't >justify frequent runs in rural areas. This is a suburban area with transit running into a large city. The trains are scheduled to run every 10 minutes or more often during rush hour. They frequently break down or have other problems. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:12:32-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Public Transportation depends on the region. PT tends to be best in urban >areas rather than rural. The cost / profit / benefit ratio simply doesn't >justify frequent runs in rural areas. This is a suburban area with transit running into a large city. The trains are scheduled to run every 10 minutes or more often during rush hour. They frequently break down or have other problems. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:15:13-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Wow, I used to have an '88 Ford Taurus. I was my dream car when I was kid >(so, my life was sheltered, sue me). I remember being surprised in the late >80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / >Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. The Mercury Sable is a Ford Taurus with a different name plate. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:15:13-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Wow, I used to have an '88 Ford Taurus. I was my dream car when I was kid >(so, my life was sheltered, sue me). I remember being surprised in the late >80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / >Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. The Mercury Sable is a Ford Taurus with a different name plate. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:18:39-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our >elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. One of the functions of our elected officials is to get re-elected even if it means screwing the people in the process. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:18:39-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our >elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. One of the functions of our elected officials is to get re-elected even if it means screwing the people in the process. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:20:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >The function of a >Hollywood celebrity is to act well and look pretty, not to preach to me >about how to live. Of course they don't have to worry about getting re-elected to office. Elected officials start raising money for re-election on the first day in office. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:20:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >The function of a >Hollywood celebrity is to act well and look pretty, not to preach to me >about how to live. Of course they don't have to worry about getting re-elected to office. Elected officials start raising money for re-election on the first day in office. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 12:25:10-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <lde02v8p77hg9o9rqbuv018p6a7oo4jf5j@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie >> ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? >> > >> >For them? Absolutely. >> >> >> Huffington has an agenda. She hates SUVs specifically. She has a lot >> of reasons. You're in the crosshairs, that's all. Squirm. > >If you think I'm squirming because of some silly TV ads, you're deluded. > >Commenting on them on Usenet does not equate to squriming. I'm probably just deluded. I definitely get carried away with my own rhetoric. NP -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 12:25:10-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >In article <lde02v8p77hg9o9rqbuv018p6a7oo4jf5j@4ax.com>, Ebie ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Thus spake BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>: >> >> >In article <6reu1vs49q5ksqgmg4lfneedksukhi42en@4ax.com>, Ebie >> ><sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Is that really the point, trying to tell everyone how to live? >> > >> >For them? Absolutely. >> >> >> Huffington has an agenda. She hates SUVs specifically. She has a lot >> of reasons. You're in the crosshairs, that's all. Squirm. > >If you think I'm squirming because of some silly TV ads, you're deluded. > >Commenting on them on Usenet does not equate to squriming. I'm probably just deluded. I definitely get carried away with my own rhetoric. NP -- "Cuppa tea, cuppa tea, almost got shagged, cuppa tea."

2003-01-11 14:16:37-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <zG_T9.7048$qU5.5416920@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > message > > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than > > > > >human driven > > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to > > > > >help others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers > > > > >and no need to tip. > > > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > > sensors would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > > inches from the car in front of you... > > And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a > catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the > following cars know you're switching to manual control and to > automatically slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. I'm still not willing to trust in computer technology that much. If someone were to purposefully sabotage the system, the 3rd, 4th and 5th computers would fail also. Maybe it would work, maybe not but it sounds like a great way to kill a lot of people and cause major disruption.

2003-01-11 14:16:37-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <zG_T9.7048$qU5.5416920@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > message > > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than > > > > >human driven > > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to > > > > >help others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers > > > > >and no need to tip. > > > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > > sensors would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > > inches from the car in front of you... > > And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a > catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the > following cars know you're switching to manual control and to > automatically slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. I'm still not willing to trust in computer technology that much. If someone were to purposefully sabotage the system, the 3rd, 4th and 5th computers would fail also. Maybe it would work, maybe not but it sounds like a great way to kill a lot of people and cause major disruption.

2003-01-11 14:17:43-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <hak02vgj14t7mahr6hos6b445aauo8knad@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our > >elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. > One of the functions of our elected officials is to get > re-elected even if it means screwing the people > in the process. No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's not in the job description.

2003-01-11 14:17:43-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <hak02vgj14t7mahr6hos6b445aauo8knad@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our > >elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. > One of the functions of our elected officials is to get > re-elected even if it means screwing the people > in the process. No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's not in the job description.

2003-01-11 14:20:04-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <uVZT9.39321$3v.5964@sccrnsc01>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > ---------- > In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat > <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't > >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It > >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > >> > > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy > > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by > > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in > > some way. > > Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. > > Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local > newspaper here - submitted for your approval > > ...... > > Fight Terrorism > Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the > coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don���t import > their > oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities > of > middle-eastern oil. > > Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: > > (for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). > > Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. > Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. > Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. > Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. > Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. > > > If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over > $18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do > not import middle-eastern oil. > > > Citgo: 0 barrels. > Sunoco: 0 barrels > Conoco: 0 barrels > Sinclair: 0 barrels. > BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. > Hess: 0 barrels. > > All this information is available from the department of energy and can > be > easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state > where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on > a > monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. > > > > > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge > > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact > > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before > > 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The > > same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh > > gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, > > but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a > > damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. > > Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous > machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less > likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like > in the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most > where the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New > England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road > and into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports > coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it > for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they > deserve gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. All that is well and good but most SUV drivers I know have them because of the utility-- i.e., the ability to carry loads of stuff that just won't fit in a regular size car. It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road.

2003-01-11 14:20:04-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <uVZT9.39321$3v.5964@sccrnsc01>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > ---------- > In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat > <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't > >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It > >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. > >> > > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy > > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by > > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in > > some way. > > Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. > > Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local > newspaper here - submitted for your approval > > ...... > > Fight Terrorism > Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the > coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don���t import > their > oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities > of > middle-eastern oil. > > Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: > > (for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). > > Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. > Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. > Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. > Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. > Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. > > > If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over > $18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do > not import middle-eastern oil. > > > Citgo: 0 barrels. > Sunoco: 0 barrels > Conoco: 0 barrels > Sinclair: 0 barrels. > BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. > Hess: 0 barrels. > > All this information is available from the department of energy and can > be > easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state > where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on > a > monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. > > > > > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge > > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact > > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before > > 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The > > same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh > > gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, > > but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a > > damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. > > Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous > machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less > likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like > in the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most > where the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New > England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road > and into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports > coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it > for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they > deserve gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. All that is well and good but most SUV drivers I know have them because of the utility-- i.e., the ability to carry loads of stuff that just won't fit in a regular size car. It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road.

2003-01-11 14:21:45-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <IC_T9.7047$qU5.5416408@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com... > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > >sensors > > >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > potholes, > > >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > After living through many hard winters up here in the > > northland I doubt it. > > > > Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime > > when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years > > and never grasp that fact around here. > > > > Of course the engineers who designed the > > car for ice driving have probably never driven > > on ice........ > > > > ====================================================== > > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > > Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow > down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor > lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" > that fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface > from 20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect > icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect > thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by > water or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and > fog far better than mere human vision. > > Besides, who does NOT want they own chaffeur-driven car? What you're describing would take decades to implement even if they started working on it today. It sounds good but I don't see us all living the Jetsons lifestyle any time soon.

2003-01-11 14:21:45-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <IC_T9.7047$qU5.5416408@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > message > news:gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com... > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > >sensors > > >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > potholes, > > >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > After living through many hard winters up here in the > > northland I doubt it. > > > > Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime > > when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years > > and never grasp that fact around here. > > > > Of course the engineers who designed the > > car for ice driving have probably never driven > > on ice........ > > > > ====================================================== > > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > > Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow > down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor > lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" > that fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface > from 20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect > icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect > thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by > water or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and > fog far better than mere human vision. > > Besides, who does NOT want they own chaffeur-driven car? What you're describing would take decades to implement even if they started working on it today. It sounds good but I don't see us all living the Jetsons lifestyle any time soon.

2003-01-11 14:36:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >That's where the parallel computers would act as backup. What backup computers? Too many times the backup computer was a pen and paper. I've worked for too many companies that had no backup computer whatsoever. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 14:36:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >That's where the parallel computers would act as backup. What backup computers? Too many times the backup computer was a pen and paper. I've worked for too many companies that had no backup computer whatsoever. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 14:38:21-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Riff Randall <riffrandall@rocknroll.edu> wrote: >>Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been >>wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the >>road. Actually I had a Valiant many many year ago. Two transmissions later I got rid of it. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 14:38:21-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Riff Randall <riffrandall@rocknroll.edu> wrote: >>Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been >>wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the >>road. Actually I had a Valiant many many year ago. Two transmissions later I got rid of it. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 14:39:47-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1F3F85.833CEF7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > > > > > > > And you know this how? > > > > > > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > > > > > > > > > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person > > > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood > > > that something is the case. > > > > Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying > > desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. Quit while > > you're behind, already. > > Yeah, right. You claim Lear's cars are probably collectors pieces and > when asked what shred of evidence you have for that statement, you > provide none. > > And you say *I'm* in a corner? Wow. How long have you been speaking English? Do you understand how "probably" gets used in colloquial conversation? Are you even remotely familiar with the use of "probably" in making a guess? Of course you are. Now stop making an ass and a pest of yourself, and piss off. (By the way, that does not require actually voiding your bladder, Mr. Ridiculously Literal.)

2003-01-11 14:39:47-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com>)


BTR1701 wrote: > In article <3E1F3F85.833CEF7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > In article <3E1F066A.41E1F33A@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > BTR1701 wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <3E1E19D7.29E897D7@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson > > > > > <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars > > > > > > > > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay > > > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. > > > > > > > > > > And you know this how? > > > > > > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. > > > > > > > > > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person > > > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood > > > that something is the case. > > > > Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying > > desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. Quit while > > you're behind, already. > > Yeah, right. You claim Lear's cars are probably collectors pieces and > when asked what shred of evidence you have for that statement, you > provide none. > > And you say *I'm* in a corner? Wow. How long have you been speaking English? Do you understand how "probably" gets used in colloquial conversation? Are you even remotely familiar with the use of "probably" in making a guess? Of course you are. Now stop making an ass and a pest of yourself, and piss off. (By the way, that does not require actually voiding your bladder, Mr. Ridiculously Literal.)

2003-01-11 15:05:23-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +0000, Ken wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... >> On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >>,snip> >> After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. >> ><snip> > WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean > MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall > for the hype. > > Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. > [yustabe@K7 yustabe]$ uname -a Linux K7.localnet 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux Amiga??? > -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) > > P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in > parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped > working.

2003-01-11 15:05:23-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +0000, Ken wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... >> On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >>,snip> >> After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. >> ><snip> > WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean > MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall > for the hype. > > Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. > [yustabe@K7 yustabe]$ uname -a Linux K7.localnet 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux Amiga??? > -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) > > P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in > parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped > working.

2003-01-11 16:27:09-05:00 - Re: Slant 6 - (Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com>)


Riff Randall wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:13:02 -0500, Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >In the early '70s my brother was driving the family hand-me-down '64 Ford > >Galaxie in college - pulling out of a parking spot he was hit by some guy in his > >new (American) car speeding through the lot - smashed up the other guy's car, > >and my brother's car wasn't scratched - but a big chunk of Midwestern snow-salt > >rust dropped out of the quarter panel. > > >Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been > >wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the > >road. > > Make sure to get one with the 'Leaning Tower Of Power" slant 6....one of the most indestructable engines ever put in an > auto. Chyslers are tough in general but slant 6 powered ones make their V8 sisters look like high strung garage queens. Nice to know, as someone who owed a Dart with a 318-V8 and was quite happy with it. Then in a weak moment I gave the car to my sister, who promptly got rid of it. Grr, Arrgh. VMacek Anyone got a '64 Signet convertible for sale?

2003-01-11 16:27:09-05:00 - Re: Slant 6 - (Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com>)


Riff Randall wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 19:13:02 -0500, Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >In the early '70s my brother was driving the family hand-me-down '64 Ford > >Galaxie in college - pulling out of a parking spot he was hit by some guy in his > >new (American) car speeding through the lot - smashed up the other guy's car, > >and my brother's car wasn't scratched - but a big chunk of Midwestern snow-salt > >rust dropped out of the quarter panel. > > >Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been > >wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the > >road. > > Make sure to get one with the 'Leaning Tower Of Power" slant 6....one of the most indestructable engines ever put in an > auto. Chyslers are tough in general but slant 6 powered ones make their V8 sisters look like high strung garage queens. Nice to know, as someone who owed a Dart with a 318-V8 and was quite happy with it. Then in a weak moment I gave the car to my sister, who promptly got rid of it. Grr, Arrgh. VMacek Anyone got a '64 Signet convertible for sale?

2003-01-11 17:01:44+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). > I can see it now: > > "This trip is being aborted for the following reason: > > the screen turns blue and a message comes up > saying the system is not responding. You can > wait a few minutes for the system to return or > you can hit CTRL ALT DEL to restart. > > After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. > > Maybe I would be stuck in trafffic and the car gives me > the message you must upgrade to continue this trip. > > BTW, the average car today already has more than > 300 computers built in. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall for the hype. Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped working.

2003-01-11 17:01:44+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). > I can see it now: > > "This trip is being aborted for the following reason: > > the screen turns blue and a message comes up > saying the system is not responding. You can > wait a few minutes for the system to return or > you can hit CTRL ALT DEL to restart. > > After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. > > Maybe I would be stuck in trafffic and the car gives me > the message you must upgrade to continue this trip. > > BTW, the average car today already has more than > 300 computers built in. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall for the hype. Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped working.

2003-01-11 17:03:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > >to tip. > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > stop on a patch of ice....... > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:03:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > >to tip. > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > stop on a patch of ice....... > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:04:33+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ivb02v03e754b166n24dku4u4fdh5jp6ki@4ax.com... > On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > >99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car > >is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago > >during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are > >going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, > >unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of > >travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not > >move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and > >flustered. > And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. > Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? > Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:04:33+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ivb02v03e754b166n24dku4u4fdh5jp6ki@4ax.com... > On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > >99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car > >is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago > >during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are > >going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, > >unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of > >travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not > >move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and > >flustered. > And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. > Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? > Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:06:17+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4qb02vk6qobiekdhclido524rdo8uii873@4ax.com... > On eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) wrote: > > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of > >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour > >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily > >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those > >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, > >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit > >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a > >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was > >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy > >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even > >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > There were many times when I would go to take Mass Transit > into town and would take upwards of six hours (or more). > That in my book is completely unacceptable. Not when > I can drive there in 15 minutes. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Public Transportation depends on the region. PT tends to be best in urban areas rather than rural. The cost / profit / benefit ratio simply doesn't justify frequent runs in rural areas. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:06:17+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4qb02vk6qobiekdhclido524rdo8uii873@4ax.com... > On eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) wrote: > > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of > >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour > >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily > >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those > >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, > >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit > >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a > >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was > >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy > >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even > >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > There were many times when I would go to take Mass Transit > into town and would take upwards of six hours (or more). > That in my book is completely unacceptable. Not when > I can drive there in 15 minutes. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Public Transportation depends on the region. PT tends to be best in urban areas rather than rural. The cost / profit / benefit ratio simply doesn't justify frequent runs in rural areas. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:07:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E78513.01422911012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock > <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > > >>ONLY > > >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > > >>least those who live in cities. > > >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > >doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > > > > > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > > guzzling car. > > How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about > Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of > a person you don't even know. > > Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several > times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily > in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. Why wouldnt she drive a "domestic" car? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:07:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E78513.01422911012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock > <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > > >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > > >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > > >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > > >>ONLY > > >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > > >>least those who live in cities. > > >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > > >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > >doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > > > > > You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > > guzzling car. > > How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about > Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of > a person you don't even know. > > Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several > times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily > in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. Why wouldnt she drive a "domestic" car? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:10:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gic02vg6a1vvgaocidgk9g215svj85uovb@4ax.com... > On Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > >guzzling car. > I don't drive an SUV. A drive a mid size car that gets very > good gas mileage. Largrer than a sub compact but > smaller than an SUV (Mercury Sable). > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Wow, I used to have an '88 Ford Taurus. I was my dream car when I was kid (so, my life was sheltered, sue me). I remember being surprised in the late 80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 17:10:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gic02vg6a1vvgaocidgk9g215svj85uovb@4ax.com... > On Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > >guzzling car. > I don't drive an SUV. A drive a mid size car that gets very > good gas mileage. Largrer than a sub compact but > smaller than an SUV (Mercury Sable). > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Wow, I used to have an '88 Ford Taurus. I was my dream car when I was kid (so, my life was sheltered, sue me). I remember being surprised in the late 80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 18:02:32-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow >down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor >lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" that >fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface from >20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect >icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect >thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by water >or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and >fog far better than mere human vision. And after all that they will still drive 60mph and be in for a rude awakening when it comes time to stop. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:02:32-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow >down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor >lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" that >fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface from >20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect >icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect >thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by water >or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and >fog far better than mere human vision. And after all that they will still drive 60mph and be in for a rude awakening when it comes time to stop. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:04:33-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <3E1E4FD2.3050901@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > > >>I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund >>these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to >>stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to >>charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't >>do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, >>but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their >>lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken >>clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 >>or something :) ) > > > The message is not valid. Pointing at SUVs and ignoring every other > driver on the road is logically wrong. It's incorrect. It's a fallacy. > An untruth. Vehicles use gas. Slanderously labeling a portion of > vehicle owners as supporters of terrorism is not a good message at all. > Whatever pount she had has been irrevocably damaged. Well, although the drug commercials keep pointing out, it's not OK to support terrorism "a little", I'm happy in the knowledge that I support terrorism much less than SUV owners. If you want to use the minimum amount of oil you can to stay alive, keep working, and have a reasonable standard of living, you don't drive an SUV unless you have too. As I pointed out in another post, I don't drive, don't own a car, and take public transportation exclusively (and have for years, in many different cities, so I know most of the horror stories about how bad public transportation is are just excuses people use to justify their own selfishness and their lack of willingness to inconvenience themselves the tiniest bit). I support terrorism through oil much less than most people, but I still do somewhat. I use plastics, for one thing. Hell, even my train pass is made of plastic. But the point is, most people in SUVs are using more oil than the *need* to in order to get through their workdays, etc. It is a valid message. SUVs use a lot of fuel and aren't subject to "gas guzzler" tax.

2003-01-11 18:04:33-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <3E1E4FD2.3050901@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > > >>I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund >>these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to >>stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to >>charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't >>do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, >>but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their >>lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken >>clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 >>or something :) ) > > > The message is not valid. Pointing at SUVs and ignoring every other > driver on the road is logically wrong. It's incorrect. It's a fallacy. > An untruth. Vehicles use gas. Slanderously labeling a portion of > vehicle owners as supporters of terrorism is not a good message at all. > Whatever pount she had has been irrevocably damaged. Well, although the drug commercials keep pointing out, it's not OK to support terrorism "a little", I'm happy in the knowledge that I support terrorism much less than SUV owners. If you want to use the minimum amount of oil you can to stay alive, keep working, and have a reasonable standard of living, you don't drive an SUV unless you have too. As I pointed out in another post, I don't drive, don't own a car, and take public transportation exclusively (and have for years, in many different cities, so I know most of the horror stories about how bad public transportation is are just excuses people use to justify their own selfishness and their lack of willingness to inconvenience themselves the tiniest bit). I support terrorism through oil much less than most people, but I still do somewhat. I use plastics, for one thing. Hell, even my train pass is made of plastic. But the point is, most people in SUVs are using more oil than the *need* to in order to get through their workdays, etc. It is a valid message. SUVs use a lot of fuel and aren't subject to "gas guzzler" tax.

2003-01-11 18:06:42-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a >catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the >following cars know you're switching to manual control and to automatically >slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. What backup computers? My understanding is cars today have 300 computers and no backups. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:06:42-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a >catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the >following cars know you're switching to manual control and to automatically >slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. What backup computers? My understanding is cars today have 300 computers and no backups. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:09:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Ah, but then you have to worry about getting your car out--eventually. That is what tow trucks are for........ ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:09:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Ah, but then you have to worry about getting your car out--eventually. That is what tow trucks are for........ ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:11:24-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >not in the job description. Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected officiall is to get reelelcted. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:11:24-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >not in the job description. Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected officiall is to get reelelcted. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:14:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


>> And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it >> would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads >> could be torn up to make room for parks. You've never seen how much pollution a bus dumps in to the air have you? ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:14:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


>> And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it >> would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads >> could be torn up to make room for parks. You've never seen how much pollution a bus dumps in to the air have you? ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 18:18:00-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, > Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > >>On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>>least those who live in cities. >> >>I'll take public transportation when it actually works. >> >>I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >>there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >>doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, > during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. > On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to > get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus > trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has > the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 > minutes later. > > Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works > rather well. you should try it Very good points. I've lived in several areas and used their public transportation systems without problems. The last city I lived in, I was there for 1 1/2 years - I was late to work *once* because of the train and *once* on the way home the train in front of us broke down and we couldn't move for half an hour. On snowy days, I was *always* the only person to work on time, and even on non-snowy or rainy days, most of my co-workers blamed traffic problems for their lateness. They had all these variables - traffic, being stuck behind slow drivers, accidents, etc. They were late WAY more than I was. I get a lot done on my morning and evening commutes and I arrive at home and work relaxed and calm. People who say things like "I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get there by public transportation." are just refusing to learn to deal effectively w/ the public transportation systems. Even when I went to another city for training, and it required 2 trains and 1 bus to get there, it took me about as long as it would take to drive through rush-hour. I planned out my route in advance to minimize "downtime" while waiting for the next train or bus. You can make public transportation work for you - and it's never going to get any better until there is a demand for it to get better. (Not that it's really bad now - I'd definitely rank public transportation as more reliable than driving)

2003-01-11 18:18:00-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, > Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > >>On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> >> >>>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >>>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >>>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >>>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY >>>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >>>least those who live in cities. >> >>I'll take public transportation when it actually works. >> >>I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >>there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >>doesn't break down which it does very often). > > > I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, > during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. > On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to > get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus > trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has > the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 > minutes later. > > Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works > rather well. you should try it Very good points. I've lived in several areas and used their public transportation systems without problems. The last city I lived in, I was there for 1 1/2 years - I was late to work *once* because of the train and *once* on the way home the train in front of us broke down and we couldn't move for half an hour. On snowy days, I was *always* the only person to work on time, and even on non-snowy or rainy days, most of my co-workers blamed traffic problems for their lateness. They had all these variables - traffic, being stuck behind slow drivers, accidents, etc. They were late WAY more than I was. I get a lot done on my morning and evening commutes and I arrive at home and work relaxed and calm. People who say things like "I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get there by public transportation." are just refusing to learn to deal effectively w/ the public transportation systems. Even when I went to another city for training, and it required 2 trains and 1 bus to get there, it took me about as long as it would take to drive through rush-hour. I planned out my route in advance to minimize "downtime" while waiting for the next train or bus. You can make public transportation work for you - and it's never going to get any better until there is a demand for it to get better. (Not that it's really bad now - I'd definitely rank public transportation as more reliable than driving)

2003-01-11 18:45:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Willow Rosenberg wrote: > >>>And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it >>>would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads >>>could be torn up to make room for parks. >> > You've never seen how much pollution a bus dumps in to the > air have you? Yes, but there would be 40 people on a bus, meaning 40 less cars on the road. 40 cars = more pollution than 1 bus. (Where I live, they have "electronic trains" - which look just like trolleys. Very clean, but there isn't demand for them all over the country because people are so married to cars = freedom)

2003-01-11 18:45:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Willow Rosenberg wrote: > >>>And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it >>>would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads >>>could be torn up to make room for parks. >> > You've never seen how much pollution a bus dumps in to the > air have you? Yes, but there would be 40 people on a bus, meaning 40 less cars on the road. 40 cars = more pollution than 1 bus. (Where I live, they have "electronic trains" - which look just like trolleys. Very clean, but there isn't demand for them all over the country because people are so married to cars = freedom)

2003-01-11 19:04:58+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in > some way. Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local newspaper here - submitted for your approval ...... Fight Terrorism Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don�t import their oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities of middle-eastern oil. Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: (for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do not import middle-eastern oil. Citgo: 0 barrels. Sunoco: 0 barrels Conoco: 0 barrels Sinclair: 0 barrels. BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. Hess: 0 barrels. All this information is available from the department of energy and can be easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. > > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before > 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The > same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh > gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, > but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a > damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. Deb.

2003-01-11 19:04:58+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in > some way. Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local newspaper here - submitted for your approval ...... Fight Terrorism Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don�t import their oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities of middle-eastern oil. Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: (for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do not import middle-eastern oil. Citgo: 0 barrels. Sunoco: 0 barrels Conoco: 0 barrels Sinclair: 0 barrels. BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. Hess: 0 barrels. All this information is available from the department of energy and can be easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. > > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before > 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The > same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh > gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, > but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a > damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. Deb.

2003-01-11 19:05:12+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been > wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the > road. And get better gas mileage to boot! Those old cars have carburetors in them - just tweak the things to run lean, run a higher octane fuel, change the oil and air filters religiously and you can get great economy out of them. Got me an '83 Toyota Hi-Lux with a Camry engine (22-R, 2.3 litre) in it, that's nearly 30 mpg on the highway, with a cap on the back! Ha! Eat that Mr. Suburban! Deb.

2003-01-11 19:05:12+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been > wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the > road. And get better gas mileage to boot! Those old cars have carburetors in them - just tweak the things to run lean, run a higher octane fuel, change the oil and air filters religiously and you can get great economy out of them. Got me an '83 Toyota Hi-Lux with a Camry engine (22-R, 2.3 litre) in it, that's nearly 30 mpg on the highway, with a cap on the back! Ha! Eat that Mr. Suburban! Deb.

2003-01-11 19:30:05+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>not in the job description. >Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >officiall is to get reelelcted. > Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal agenda and not part of their job. I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't make it right. Botch

2003-01-11 19:30:05+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>not in the job description. >Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >officiall is to get reelelcted. > Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal agenda and not part of their job. I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't make it right. Botch

2003-01-11 19:45:11-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:10:49 +0000, Ken wrote: > > "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:pan.2003.01.11.20.05.23.35340@bellsouth.net... >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +0000, Ken wrote: >> >> >> > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in >> > message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... >> >> On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >>,snip> >> >> After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. >> >> >> ><snip> >> > WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean >> > MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall >> > for the hype. >> > >> > Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. >> > >> [yustabe@K7 yustabe]$ uname -a >> Linux K7.localnet 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 i686 >> unknown unknown GNU/Linux >> >> Amiga??? >> >> >> > -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) >> > >> > P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in >> > parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped >> > working. >> > > Amiga ... ah, where to begin. The Amiga was to home computers what the > Tucker was to automobile. Where just now are common desktop video software > is common place for Windows, it was already so a decade ago on the Amiga. > Where now it's pert near impossible to find home 3d animation software > (altho there was a spurt in the late 90s), it was commonplace a decade ago > on the Amiga. > <snip> I appreciate the history lesson, and I do remember seeing Amigas in local puter store many moons ago, and having Computer Joe tout its many techie marvels. IIRC, I bought an IBM clone cause I needed specific software not available for Amiga. However, I was attemting a juxtaposition of Linux, a viable alternative to MS for a lot of people, to Amiga, which however unfortunately, isn't. Amiga got #9 on this list: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,57023,00.html

2003-01-11 19:45:11-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:10:49 +0000, Ken wrote: > > "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > news:pan.2003.01.11.20.05.23.35340@bellsouth.net... >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +0000, Ken wrote: >> >> >> > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in >> > message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... >> >> On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >>,snip> >> >> After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. >> >> >> ><snip> >> > WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean >> > MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall >> > for the hype. >> > >> > Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. >> > >> [yustabe@K7 yustabe]$ uname -a >> Linux K7.localnet 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 i686 >> unknown unknown GNU/Linux >> >> Amiga??? >> >> >> > -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) >> > >> > P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in >> > parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped >> > working. >> > > Amiga ... ah, where to begin. The Amiga was to home computers what the > Tucker was to automobile. Where just now are common desktop video software > is common place for Windows, it was already so a decade ago on the Amiga. > Where now it's pert near impossible to find home 3d animation software > (altho there was a spurt in the late 90s), it was commonplace a decade ago > on the Amiga. > <snip> I appreciate the history lesson, and I do remember seeing Amigas in local puter store many moons ago, and having Computer Joe tout its many techie marvels. IIRC, I bought an IBM clone cause I needed specific software not available for Amiga. However, I was attemting a juxtaposition of Linux, a viable alternative to MS for a lot of people, to Amiga, which however unfortunately, isn't. Amiga got #9 on this list: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,57023,00.html

2003-01-11 19:47:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:v7j02v8j6af6a0ipeco9jir7h5va2q8agg@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean > >MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall for > >the hype. > > > >Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. > > But other computers do crash, freeze up, etc. And then > there are the mandatory upgrades. > > Long before Microsoft I was using VAX 11/780s which also > crashed often. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- That's where the parallel computers would act as backup. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 19:47:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:v7j02v8j6af6a0ipeco9jir7h5va2q8agg@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean > >MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall for > >the hype. > > > >Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. > > But other computers do crash, freeze up, etc. And then > there are the mandatory upgrades. > > Long before Microsoft I was using VAX 11/780s which also > crashed often. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- That's where the parallel computers would act as backup. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 19:53:12+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, > >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > After living through many hard winters up here in the > northland I doubt it. > > Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime > when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years > and never grasp that fact around here. > > Of course the engineers who designed the > car for ice driving have probably never driven > on ice........ > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" that fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface from 20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by water or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and fog far better than mere human vision. Besides, who does NOT want they own chaffeur-driven car? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 19:53:12+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, > >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > After living through many hard winters up here in the > northland I doubt it. > > Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime > when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years > and never grasp that fact around here. > > Of course the engineers who designed the > car for ice driving have probably never driven > on ice........ > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" that fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface from 20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by water or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and fog far better than mere human vision. Besides, who does NOT want they own chaffeur-driven car? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 19:57:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > > >to tip. > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > inches from the car in front of you... And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the following cars know you're switching to manual control and to automatically slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. Plus built-in self-diagnostic sensors could monitor the car for trouble as well as roving swarms of mini or micro-robots could constantly crawl checking for metal fatigue, clogs, stress microfractures, rust, etc. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 19:57:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > > >to tip. > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > inches from the car in front of you... And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the following cars know you're switching to manual control and to automatically slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. Plus built-in self-diagnostic sensors could monitor the car for trouble as well as roving swarms of mini or micro-robots could constantly crawl checking for metal fatigue, clogs, stress microfractures, rust, etc. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 20:00:13+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mrj02vgp84nle4ll4aqlpm7j3o8lgtfash@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > where they refused to open the door. > > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Ah, but then you have to worry about getting your car out--eventually. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 20:00:13+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mrj02vgp84nle4ll4aqlpm7j3o8lgtfash@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > where they refused to open the door. > > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Ah, but then you have to worry about getting your car out--eventually. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 20:05:33-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:23:31 +0000, D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com > says... >> >> > >> >D�sir�e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >> >your mouth in public >> >> I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point >> out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before >> being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead >> Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. >> > tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and > say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners > > D�sir�e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people > off now I think I'm in love :-)

2003-01-11 20:05:33-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:23:31 +0000, D�sir�e Davis wrote: > In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com > says... >> >> > >> >D�sir�e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >> >your mouth in public >> >> I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point >> out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before >> being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead >> Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. >> > tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and > say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners > > D�sir�e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people > off now I think I'm in love :-)

2003-01-11 20:29:15-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:07:05 +0000, Silverlock wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > >>In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock >><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 >>> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> BTR1701 wrote: >>> > >>> >> ><snip> >>Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be >>doing with my own personal property. > > Actually it is, I vote green. > hey BTR170x- don't know about you, but I got a warm fuzzy feeling after reading that... > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > all.

2003-01-11 20:29:15-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:07:05 +0000, Silverlock wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > >>In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock >><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 >>> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> BTR1701 wrote: >>> > >>> >> ><snip> >>Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be >>doing with my own personal property. > > Actually it is, I vote green. > hey BTR170x- don't know about you, but I got a warm fuzzy feeling after reading that... > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > all.

2003-01-11 20:43:28+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> >> Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe >> to grind but that's not the issue here. > Well, specifically, the drug use = terrorism ads were created by the > Bush administration and are blatantly false and hypocritical. If you > replace the word "drug" with the word "oil", however, you have a pretty > strong case. Alternativly replace "terrorism" with "CIA", not that many people in Central and South America could care much for the distinction. > So some people decided that since the government was actively telling > lies while actively suppressing the truth, they would put the truth out > there. And the result is this SUV ad. > Now, I'm sorry that you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance after > seeing the ad and learning the truth. But rather than get angry, a more > productive solution would be to get with it and stop being part of the > problem. Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy > in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. Only if they can also work out a way to pay no taxes too.

2003-01-11 20:43:28+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Jesse James Jensen <jesse@uchicago.edu> wrote: > BTR1701 wrote: >> >> Okay.... fine. Apparently you have some kind of drug war/George Bush axe >> to grind but that's not the issue here. > Well, specifically, the drug use = terrorism ads were created by the > Bush administration and are blatantly false and hypocritical. If you > replace the word "drug" with the word "oil", however, you have a pretty > strong case. Alternativly replace "terrorism" with "CIA", not that many people in Central and South America could care much for the distinction. > So some people decided that since the government was actively telling > lies while actively suppressing the truth, they would put the truth out > there. And the result is this SUV ad. > Now, I'm sorry that you're experiencing some cognitive dissonance after > seeing the ad and learning the truth. But rather than get angry, a more > productive solution would be to get with it and stop being part of the > problem. Sell the 4Runner, get a hybrid, smoke homegrown, and rest easy > in the knowledge that you're not funding terrorists. Only if they can also work out a way to pay no taxes too.

2003-01-11 20:57:44+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:42:05 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >>After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >>rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >>I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >>I was rear ended. > Why do people only ever argue SUV vs. subcompact? How about a nice > midsize sedan? I'm not asking you to drive a fricking Ford Festiva > here, I wouldn't wish that on George W. Bush Himself. But try driving > something that gets more than 8 miles to the gallon, won'tcha? Doubt whatever he uses gets many miles to the gallon, on the other hand it probably will survive multiple hits from anti tank weapons.

2003-01-11 20:57:44+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:42:05 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >>After getting rear ended by truck on the expressway I'd >>rather be driving an SUV instead of a tiny subcompact. >> >>I'd probably be dead if I were driving a subcompact when >>I was rear ended. > Why do people only ever argue SUV vs. subcompact? How about a nice > midsize sedan? I'm not asking you to drive a fricking Ford Festiva > here, I wouldn't wish that on George W. Bush Himself. But try driving > something that gets more than 8 miles to the gallon, won'tcha? Doubt whatever he uses gets many miles to the gallon, on the other hand it probably will survive multiple hits from anti tank weapons.

2003-01-11 21:01:36+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <ph2v1v8c9n1fi0r38makecfdcljf50vi83@4ax.com>, Ebie > <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >> >If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into >> >question the validity of their statement and why their making it. >> >> What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she >> preaches. > No, she just jets around the country in Learjets. Much more fuel > efficient than an SUV, right? Tell me another one. Actually aircraft can be very fuel efficient when it comes to passenger miles per gallon. But this tends to work better with an airliner than a Learjet.

2003-01-11 21:01:36+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <ph2v1v8c9n1fi0r38makecfdcljf50vi83@4ax.com>, Ebie > <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Thus spake Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>: >> >If the person doesn't practice what they preach, then it calls into >> >question the validity of their statement and why their making it. >> >> What? Huffington drives an SUV? Obviously not. She practices what she >> preaches. > No, she just jets around the country in Learjets. Much more fuel > efficient than an SUV, right? Tell me another one. Actually aircraft can be very fuel efficient when it comes to passenger miles per gallon. But this tends to work better with an airliner than a Learjet.

2003-01-11 21:03:54+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Botch <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:39:32 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>SUVs typically get less than 10 miles / gallon. How much gasoline do >>those suckers use? And how much could be saved if those people were >>driving cars that get 40 MPG instead? > And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it > would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads > could be torn up to make room for parks. More likely the most of the carparks could be changed into parks...

2003-01-11 21:03:54+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Botch <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:39:32 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>SUVs typically get less than 10 miles / gallon. How much gasoline do >>those suckers use? And how much could be saved if those people were >>driving cars that get 40 MPG instead? > And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it > would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads > could be torn up to make room for parks. More likely the most of the carparks could be changed into parks...

2003-01-11 21:33:56-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >That's why I would propose to HAVE backup computers. I would be the first to >argue against pen-and-paper-driven cars. I've worked for some companies that would have no backup computers because they were lucky to have that one computer. The owners were older individuals who if given a choice of getting a backup computer or getting rid of the main computer and going back to the typewriter and doing stuff by hand would go with a the old fashioned method in a heart beat. They didn't trust computers and at the first sign of trouble would toss the computer. It's one of the things that comes with the territory when you have a boss that is getting up there in years. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:33:56-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >That's why I would propose to HAVE backup computers. I would be the first to >argue against pen-and-paper-driven cars. I've worked for some companies that would have no backup computers because they were lucky to have that one computer. The owners were older individuals who if given a choice of getting a backup computer or getting rid of the main computer and going back to the typewriter and doing stuff by hand would go with a the old fashioned method in a heart beat. They didn't trust computers and at the first sign of trouble would toss the computer. It's one of the things that comes with the territory when you have a boss that is getting up there in years. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:38:51-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote: > appreciate the history lesson, and I do remember seeing Amigas in >local puter store many moons ago, and having Computer Joe tout its many >techie marvels. IIRC, I bought an IBM clone cause I needed specific >software not available for Amiga. However, I was attemting a juxtaposition >of Linux, a viable alternative to MS for a lot of people, to Amiga, which >however unfortunately, isn't. Didn't the Amiga run IBM software? BTW there are still active Amiga users around. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:38:51-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote: > appreciate the history lesson, and I do remember seeing Amigas in >local puter store many moons ago, and having Computer Joe tout its many >techie marvels. IIRC, I bought an IBM clone cause I needed specific >software not available for Amiga. However, I was attemting a juxtaposition >of Linux, a viable alternative to MS for a lot of people, to Amiga, which >however unfortunately, isn't. Didn't the Amiga run IBM software? BTW there are still active Amiga users around. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:40:18-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Where's my flying car? It just went flying down the road at 120 mph in a 30 mph zone........ ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:40:18-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Where's my flying car? It just went flying down the road at 120 mph in a 30 mph zone........ ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:44:50+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Anna from Georgia <rip64@surfsouth.com>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:87k02v4nkgsq0vhojmgm1sfbc7rqo8hjfs@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: I remember being surprised in the late > >80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / > >Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. > > The Mercury Sable is a Ford Taurus with a different name > plate. > But a Cougar is nothing like an Escort, I think those two must match some other car. Anna

2003-01-11 21:44:50+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Anna from Georgia <rip64@surfsouth.com>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:87k02v4nkgsq0vhojmgm1sfbc7rqo8hjfs@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: I remember being surprised in the late > >80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / > >Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. > > The Mercury Sable is a Ford Taurus with a different name > plate. > But a Cougar is nothing like an Escort, I think those two must match some other car. Anna

2003-01-11 21:48:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus >trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has >the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 >minutes later. You lead a sheltered life. Here they break down often. Sometimes the next bus/train is hours later. Why does a 10 minute trip turn into 3 hours? Because the quickest way to get from there to there is a straight line. the bus/subway usually takes the long way.......... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:48:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus >trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has >the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 >minutes later. You lead a sheltered life. Here they break down often. Sometimes the next bus/train is hours later. Why does a 10 minute trip turn into 3 hours? Because the quickest way to get from there to there is a straight line. the bus/subway usually takes the long way.......... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:57:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: >Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works >rather well. you should try it Actually this is Boston. The Green line for many years had trains that started running in the 1920s. And those trains from the 20s were more reliable than the new cars they bought from Boeing a few years ago? (of course Boeing had never made a subway train bofore but that was besides the point. It had major problems as a result). After the Boeing trains they bought new ones that had to be completely rebuilt because of problems.) Then there is the Red Line where the trains have trouble with ice. (This is New England...like we never get ice). The trains also had major mechanical problems. The orange line and the blue are just as bad. The purple line (commuter rail) is just as bad. One of the big problems is the system can't handle the crush of people. (Think it can? Just go to Kenmore Square after a Red Sox game or go to Arlington Station after the July 4th concert on the Esplanade.) ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 21:57:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: >Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works >rather well. you should try it Actually this is Boston. The Green line for many years had trains that started running in the 1920s. And those trains from the 20s were more reliable than the new cars they bought from Boeing a few years ago? (of course Boeing had never made a subway train bofore but that was besides the point. It had major problems as a result). After the Boeing trains they bought new ones that had to be completely rebuilt because of problems.) Then there is the Red Line where the trains have trouble with ice. (This is New England...like we never get ice). The trains also had major mechanical problems. The orange line and the blue are just as bad. The purple line (commuter rail) is just as bad. One of the big problems is the system can't handle the crush of people. (Think it can? Just go to Kenmore Square after a Red Sox game or go to Arlington Station after the July 4th concert on the Esplanade.) ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:04:48+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 @ix.netcom.com says... > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > > >to tip. > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > inches from the car in front of you... > You make it sound as if this wouldn't happen with a human driver. Does technology fail? sure. does it fail as often as a human? not even close. o far your argument is "computer controlled cars could crash" as if that is some argument against using them at all. If it were, then human drivers should be abandoned as well. I suppose we should all just walk everywhere. D���sir���e - hoofin' it

2003-01-11 22:04:48+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 @ix.netcom.com says... > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > > >to tip. > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > inches from the car in front of you... > You make it sound as if this wouldn't happen with a human driver. Does technology fail? sure. does it fail as often as a human? not even close. o far your argument is "computer controlled cars could crash" as if that is some argument against using them at all. If it were, then human drivers should be abandoned as well. I suppose we should all just walk everywhere. D���sir���e - hoofin' it

2003-01-11 22:09:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >People who say things like "I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It >takes 3 hours to get there by public transportation." are just refusing >to learn to deal effectively w/ the public transportation systems. Wrong. Where I live now I have to take 3 buses to get where I could drive to in 10 minutes. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:09:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >People who say things like "I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It >takes 3 hours to get there by public transportation." are just refusing >to learn to deal effectively w/ the public transportation systems. Wrong. Where I live now I have to take 3 buses to get where I could drive to in 10 minutes. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:11:43-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >You can make public >transportation work for you - Wrong. After spending many years on Mass Transit i've come to the conclusion you can't. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:11:43-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >You can make public >transportation work for you - Wrong. After spending many years on Mass Transit i've come to the conclusion you can't. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:12:16-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > (Not that it's really bad >now - I'd definitely rank public transportation as more reliable than >driving) I would not. It sucks. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:12:16-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > (Not that it's really bad >now - I'd definitely rank public transportation as more reliable than >driving) I would not. It sucks. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:12:50+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <3E1E4FD2.3050901@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > > I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund > these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to > stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to > charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't > do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, > but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their > lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken > clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 > or something :) ) The message is not valid. Pointing at SUVs and ignoring every other driver on the road is logically wrong. It's incorrect. It's a fallacy. An untruth. Vehicles use gas. Slanderously labeling a portion of vehicle owners as supporters of terrorism is not a good message at all. Whatever pount she had has been irrevocably damaged. D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open your mouth in public

2003-01-11 22:12:50+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <3E1E4FD2.3050901@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > > I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund > these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to > stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to > charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't > do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, > but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their > lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken > clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 > or something :) ) The message is not valid. Pointing at SUVs and ignoring every other driver on the road is logically wrong. It's incorrect. It's a fallacy. An untruth. Vehicles use gas. Slanderously labeling a portion of vehicle owners as supporters of terrorism is not a good message at all. Whatever pount she had has been irrevocably damaged. D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open your mouth in public

2003-01-11 22:16:14-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > >Yeah, it's usually better the closer to urban areas and the greater the >population / potential customers, and especially if you are riding during >the standard 7-9am / 5-7pm time slots Monday thru Friday. To get to where I work it requires 3 buses, often there is a wait of at least a half hour between trips, they are never timed such that one bus leaves just after the first one arrives. Invariably the first one arrives just after the one I need to get on leaves. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:16:14-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > >Yeah, it's usually better the closer to urban areas and the greater the >population / potential customers, and especially if you are riding during >the standard 7-9am / 5-7pm time slots Monday thru Friday. To get to where I work it requires 3 buses, often there is a wait of at least a half hour between trips, they are never timed such that one bus leaves just after the first one arrives. Invariably the first one arrives just after the one I need to get on leaves. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:16:16+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >your mouth in public I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think.

2003-01-11 22:16:16+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


> >D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >your mouth in public I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think.

2003-01-11 22:18:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY > >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >least those who live in cities. > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > doesn't break down which it does very often). I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 minutes later. Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works rather well. you should try it D���sir���e - the wheel on the bus go round and round

2003-01-11 22:18:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY > >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >least those who live in cities. > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > doesn't break down which it does very often). I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 minutes later. Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works rather well. you should try it D���sir���e - the wheel on the bus go round and round

2003-01-11 22:18:38-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >Yes, but there would be 40 people on a bus, meaning 40 less cars on the >road. 40 cars = more pollution than 1 bus. (Where I live, they have >"electronic trains" - which look just like trolleys. Very clean, but >there isn't demand for them all over the country because people are so >married to cars = freedom) And that bus may have 40 people on it but is dumping enough pollution for 100 cars. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:18:38-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >Yes, but there would be 40 people on a bus, meaning 40 less cars on the >road. 40 cars = more pollution than 1 bus. (Where I live, they have >"electronic trains" - which look just like trolleys. Very clean, but >there isn't demand for them all over the country because people are so >married to cars = freedom) And that bus may have 40 people on it but is dumping enough pollution for 100 cars. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:23:31+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com says... > > > > >D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open > >your mouth in public > > I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point > out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before > being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead > Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. > tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners D���sir���e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people off now

2003-01-11 22:23:31+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com says... > > > > >D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open > >your mouth in public > > I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point > out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before > being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead > Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. > tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners D���sir���e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people off now

2003-01-11 22:23:37-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >As I pointed out in another post, I don't drive, don't own a car, and >take public transportation exclusively (and have for years, in many >different cities, so I know most of the horror stories about how bad >public transportation is are just excuses people use to justify their >own selfishness and their lack of willingness to inconvenience >themselves the tiniest bit). I don't consider walking 8 hours to get home when the train is not running a minor inconvience. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:23:37-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >As I pointed out in another post, I don't drive, don't own a car, and >take public transportation exclusively (and have for years, in many >different cities, so I know most of the horror stories about how bad >public transportation is are just excuses people use to justify their >own selfishness and their lack of willingness to inconvenience >themselves the tiniest bit). I don't consider walking 8 hours to get home when the train is not running a minor inconvience. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-11 22:49:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:54:20 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > >Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car >garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot >more gas than my one SUV. Really? How do you figure that? When I leave my car in the garage it doesn't use much gas at all. So how do his 21 cars in his garage use more gas than your SUV?

2003-01-11 22:49:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (rgorman@telusplanet.net)


On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:54:20 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > >Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car >garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot >more gas than my one SUV. Really? How do you figure that? When I leave my car in the garage it doesn't use much gas at all. So how do his 21 cars in his garage use more gas than your SUV?

2003-01-11 23:53:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7cs02vsbhlh8t1cvnsphr48djt916frd6t@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >That's where the parallel computers would act as backup. > What backup computers? Too many times the backup computer > was a pen and paper. > > I've worked for too many companies that had no backup > computer whatsoever. That's why I would propose to HAVE backup computers. I would be the first to argue against pen-and-paper-driven cars. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-11 23:53:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:7cs02vsbhlh8t1cvnsphr48djt916frd6t@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >That's where the parallel computers would act as backup. > What backup computers? Too many times the backup computer > was a pen and paper. > > I've worked for too many companies that had no backup > computer whatsoever. That's why I would propose to HAVE backup computers. I would be the first to argue against pen-and-paper-driven cars. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 00:06:57+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:42:29 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> > >> >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >> >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >> >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >> >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >> >>ONLY >> >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >> >>least those who live in cities. >> >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. >> > >> >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >> >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >> >doesn't break down which it does very often). >> > >> >> You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas >> guzzling car. > >How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about >Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of >a person you don't even know. > >Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several >times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily >in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. Sure she could, in a station wagon. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-12 00:06:57+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:42:29 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> > >> >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >> >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >> >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I >> >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >> >>ONLY >> >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >> >>least those who live in cities. >> >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. >> > >> >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get >> >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it >> >doesn't break down which it does very often). >> > >> >> You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas >> guzzling car. > >How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about >Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of >a person you don't even know. > >Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several >times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily >in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. Sure she could, in a station wagon. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-12 00:07:05+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 >> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> > >> >> BTR1701 wrote: >> > >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> >> > >> >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> >> > >> >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >> >> > garage. >> >> > >> >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >> >> > School >> >> > of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >> >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >> >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". >> >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >> >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >> >> least those who live in cities. >> >> >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >> >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >> >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >> >> >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >> >> valid. >> > >> >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing >> >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when >> >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for >> >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. >> > >> >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, >> >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. >> > >> >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive >> >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it >> >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my >> >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd >> >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just >> >like everyone else. >> > >> >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver >> >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is >> >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on >> >his talk show, guess what he did? >> > >> >"I gotta go to commercial." >> >> Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? > >Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't >just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an >"environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > Did I say natural gas? No I said gasoline or crude oil both of which are used by SUV's and neither of which are used by houses. >> For all >> you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind >> power. > >Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I >made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his >block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try >again. > And those utilities could come from solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower. You don't know, I don't know. Houses can be changed to run from alternate energy sources easily but an SUV always uses more gas then a smaller car. >> People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space >> taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. > >Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be >doing with my own personal property. Actually it is, I vote green. It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at all. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-12 00:07:05+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 >> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >> > >> >> BTR1701 wrote: >> > >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. >> >> > >> >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV >> >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. >> >> > >> >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who >> >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle >> >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car >> >> > garage. >> >> > >> >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand >> >> > School >> >> > of Social Hypocrisy. >> >> >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and >> >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support >> >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". >> >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take >> >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at >> >> least those who live in cities. >> >> >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 >> >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less >> >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... >> >> >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is >> >> valid. >> > >> >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing >> >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when >> >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for >> >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. >> > >> >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, >> >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. >> > >> >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive >> >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it >> >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my >> >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd >> >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just >> >like everyone else. >> > >> >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver >> >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is >> >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on >> >his talk show, guess what he did? >> > >> >"I gotta go to commercial." >> >> Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? > >Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't >just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an >"environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > Did I say natural gas? No I said gasoline or crude oil both of which are used by SUV's and neither of which are used by houses. >> For all >> you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind >> power. > >Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I >made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his >block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try >again. > And those utilities could come from solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower. You don't know, I don't know. Houses can be changed to run from alternate energy sources easily but an SUV always uses more gas then a smaller car. >> People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space >> taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. > >Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be >doing with my own personal property. Actually it is, I vote green. It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at all. -- Silverlock, ICQ 474725, Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage to persons or structures from use of this product. Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

2003-01-12 00:10:49+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:pan.2003.01.11.20.05.23.35340@bellsouth.net... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +0000, Ken wrote: > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... > >> On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >>,snip> > >> After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. > >> > ><snip> > > WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean > > MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall > > for the hype. > > > > Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. > > > [yustabe@K7 yustabe]$ uname -a > Linux K7.localnet 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 i686 > unknown unknown GNU/Linux > > Amiga??? > > > > -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) > > > > P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in > > parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped > > working. > Amiga ... ah, where to begin. The Amiga was to home computers what the Tucker was to automobile. Where just now are common desktop video software is common place for Windows, it was already so a decade ago on the Amiga. Where now it's pert near impossible to find home 3d animation software (altho there was a spurt in the late 90s), it was commonplace a decade ago on the Amiga. Debuting in 1985, the Amiga 1000 had half a meg of ram--yet had true pre-emptive multitasking (you could run multiple programs without having to specify the programs "pause" every few seconds to allow the operating system to interrupt as you would with "cooperative" multitasking). Drivers needed for a program could reside in a system directory OR in the directory the software was installed in--making it EASY to UNINSTALL programs. Oh and the computer had text to speech capabilities BUILT-IN. It would take Windows a decade later to come close. Even while Mac users were bragging about desktop publishing, Amigas were doing desktop publishing and desktop animation and desktop 3d rendering / animation. However, unlike the Tucker, it was not a conspiracy of the Major Players in the business that conspired to bring it down. Amiga was undermined from within by its own maker, Commodore Business Machines, CBM, who had previously made THE most popular home computer of the 80s: The Commodore 64, which itself was far ahead of the Atari 2600s, Intellivision, Colecovision, etc. and even home computer twice its price. CBM undermined the Amiga by a LACK of marketing. The fact that you don't know what the Amiga is why despite its obvious technical superiority it eventually was overshadowed by Macs and PCs. It's why Microsoft could brag about "innovations" that the Amiga could have for years. Long story short: How are people suppose to buy a better home computer if they never hear about it? -- Ken from Chicago (who has let go of the Amiga anger years ago and learned to accept) P.S. Meanwhile, the Amiga's ranking in the market was in the BOTTOM 5 percent, the president and CEO of CBM were each getting salaries in the TOP 5 percent of computer execs.

2003-01-12 00:10:49+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:pan.2003.01.11.20.05.23.35340@bellsouth.net... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 17:01:44 +0000, Ken wrote: > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message news:54c02v0f4f2qg08atgj6kc7ini3jdomqrd@4ax.com... > >> On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >>,snip> > >> After using Windows I don't want a computer driven car. > >> > ><snip> > > WRONG! Contrary to popular MYTH, "computers" DO NOT necessarily mean > > MICROSOFT! That's just what Billy Gates WANTS you to think. Don't fall > > for the hype. > > > > Many Mac users--or the rarer Amiga users--can explain the details. > > > [yustabe@K7 yustabe]$ uname -a > Linux K7.localnet 2.4.19-16mdk #1 Fri Sep 20 18:15:05 CEST 2002 i686 > unknown unknown GNU/Linux > > Amiga??? > > > > -- Ken from Chicago (former Amiga user) > > > > P.S. Besides, you could have multiple computer systems working in > > parallel to takeover when one cpu crashed-er, prematurely stopped > > working. > Amiga ... ah, where to begin. The Amiga was to home computers what the Tucker was to automobile. Where just now are common desktop video software is common place for Windows, it was already so a decade ago on the Amiga. Where now it's pert near impossible to find home 3d animation software (altho there was a spurt in the late 90s), it was commonplace a decade ago on the Amiga. Debuting in 1985, the Amiga 1000 had half a meg of ram--yet had true pre-emptive multitasking (you could run multiple programs without having to specify the programs "pause" every few seconds to allow the operating system to interrupt as you would with "cooperative" multitasking). Drivers needed for a program could reside in a system directory OR in the directory the software was installed in--making it EASY to UNINSTALL programs. Oh and the computer had text to speech capabilities BUILT-IN. It would take Windows a decade later to come close. Even while Mac users were bragging about desktop publishing, Amigas were doing desktop publishing and desktop animation and desktop 3d rendering / animation. However, unlike the Tucker, it was not a conspiracy of the Major Players in the business that conspired to bring it down. Amiga was undermined from within by its own maker, Commodore Business Machines, CBM, who had previously made THE most popular home computer of the 80s: The Commodore 64, which itself was far ahead of the Atari 2600s, Intellivision, Colecovision, etc. and even home computer twice its price. CBM undermined the Amiga by a LACK of marketing. The fact that you don't know what the Amiga is why despite its obvious technical superiority it eventually was overshadowed by Macs and PCs. It's why Microsoft could brag about "innovations" that the Amiga could have for years. Long story short: How are people suppose to buy a better home computer if they never hear about it? -- Ken from Chicago (who has let go of the Amiga anger years ago and learned to accept) P.S. Meanwhile, the Amiga's ranking in the market was in the BOTTOM 5 percent, the president and CEO of CBM were each getting salaries in the TOP 5 percent of computer execs.

2003-01-12 00:27:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-43E2BB.14214511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <IC_T9.7047$qU5.5416408@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com... > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > > >sensors > > > >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > potholes, > > > >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > After living through many hard winters up here in the > > > northland I doubt it. > > > > > > Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime > > > when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years > > > and never grasp that fact around here. > > > > > > Of course the engineers who designed the > > > car for ice driving have probably never driven > > > on ice........ > > > > > > ====================================================== > > > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > > > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > > > > Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow > > down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor > > lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" > > that fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface > > from 20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect > > icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect > > thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by > > water or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and > > fog far better than mere human vision. > > > > Besides, who does NOT want they own chaffeur-driven car? > > What you're describing would take decades to implement even if they > started working on it today. It sounds good but I don't see us all > living the Jetsons lifestyle any time soon. Well someone better START! DANGIT! It's 3 frelling years into the 21st century, 3 DECADES after the personal jetpack debuted on TV FRELLING SHOWS! Where's my jetpack?! Where's my flying car? At least China debuted maglev trains (trains that float by MAGnetic LEVitation a few inches above a track) which can compete with planes for local travel. So far we had to settle for the segway. DANGIT! Oh and computer-driven cars would allow tvs for drivers and computers and video games for drivers and more advertising--but also allow me to nap during my daily 3-hour commute-er, PEOPLE's daily commute. It would end drunk drivers ("Mommy, Daddy, what was a 'designated driver'?"), Monday-morning drivers, sleepy drivers, while enabling physically challenged people and the elderly to have the freedom of their own cars. Imagine, you're at work and your car goes to the gas station to fill-er-up because its low on gas. Imagine, you're at home and you can send your car to the store for groceries. Imagine you have kids, and they could be dropped off at school before or after dropping you off at work and later picked up after school before the car returns to work to pick you up. Imagine, a simple wireless internet connection allows you at home to see where your kids have taken your car, or if your kids were in trouble and need a lift home, you can send the car and "have a talk" with them in the morning. -- Ken from Chicago P.S. Joyce could let Buffy use the car without having to worry--at least not about Buffy's driving skills, or lack thereof.

2003-01-12 00:27:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-43E2BB.14214511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <IC_T9.7047$qU5.5416408@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com... > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > >Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > > >sensors > > > >would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > potholes, > > > >puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > After living through many hard winters up here in the > > > northland I doubt it. > > > > > > Be it computer or human control, a car can't stop on a dime > > > when it hits an icy patch. Many people drive many years > > > and never grasp that fact around here. > > > > > > Of course the engineers who designed the > > > car for ice driving have probably never driven > > > on ice........ > > > > > > ====================================================== > > > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > > > > > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > > > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > > > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > > > > Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow > > down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor > > lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" > > that fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface > > from 20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect > > icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect > > thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by > > water or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and > > fog far better than mere human vision. > > > > Besides, who does NOT want they own chaffeur-driven car? > > What you're describing would take decades to implement even if they > started working on it today. It sounds good but I don't see us all > living the Jetsons lifestyle any time soon. Well someone better START! DANGIT! It's 3 frelling years into the 21st century, 3 DECADES after the personal jetpack debuted on TV FRELLING SHOWS! Where's my jetpack?! Where's my flying car? At least China debuted maglev trains (trains that float by MAGnetic LEVitation a few inches above a track) which can compete with planes for local travel. So far we had to settle for the segway. DANGIT! Oh and computer-driven cars would allow tvs for drivers and computers and video games for drivers and more advertising--but also allow me to nap during my daily 3-hour commute-er, PEOPLE's daily commute. It would end drunk drivers ("Mommy, Daddy, what was a 'designated driver'?"), Monday-morning drivers, sleepy drivers, while enabling physically challenged people and the elderly to have the freedom of their own cars. Imagine, you're at work and your car goes to the gas station to fill-er-up because its low on gas. Imagine, you're at home and you can send your car to the store for groceries. Imagine you have kids, and they could be dropped off at school before or after dropping you off at work and later picked up after school before the car returns to work to pick you up. Imagine, a simple wireless internet connection allows you at home to see where your kids have taken your car, or if your kids were in trouble and need a lift home, you can send the car and "have a talk" with them in the morning. -- Ken from Chicago P.S. Joyce could let Buffy use the car without having to worry--at least not about Buffy's driving skills, or lack thereof.

2003-01-12 00:30:53+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E61108.14163711012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <zG_T9.7048$qU5.5416920@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > news:BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > > message > > > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than > > > > > >human driven > > > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to > > > > > >help others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers > > > > > >and no need to tip. > > > > > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > > > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > > > sensors would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > > > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > > > inches from the car in front of you... > > > > And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a > > catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the > > following cars know you're switching to manual control and to > > automatically slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. > > I'm still not willing to trust in computer technology that much. If > someone were to purposefully sabotage the system, the 3rd, 4th and 5th > computers would fail also. > > Maybe it would work, maybe not but it sounds like a great way to kill a > lot of people and cause major disruption. And what prevents someone from sabotaging car engines now? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 00:30:53+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-E61108.14163711012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <zG_T9.7048$qU5.5416920@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > news:BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > > message > > > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than > > > > > >human driven > > > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to > > > > > >help others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers > > > > > >and no need to tip. > > > > > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > > > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED > > > > sensors would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > > > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > > > inches from the car in front of you... > > > > And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a > > catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the > > following cars know you're switching to manual control and to > > automatically slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. > > I'm still not willing to trust in computer technology that much. If > someone were to purposefully sabotage the system, the 3rd, 4th and 5th > computers would fail also. > > Maybe it would work, maybe not but it sounds like a great way to kill a > lot of people and cause major disruption. And what prevents someone from sabotaging car engines now? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 00:32:40-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>: >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>You can make public >>transportation work for you - >Wrong. After spending many years on Mass Transit i've >come to the conclusion you can't. > Depends where you live. The sad truth is, most places in America, public transit is wretched. That needs to change. -- Spike: You know why I really hate you, Summers? Fuffy: 'Cause I'm a stuckup tightass with no sense of fun? Spike: Well. Yeah, that covers a lot of it...

2003-01-12 00:32:40-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com>)


Thus spake Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>: >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>You can make public >>transportation work for you - >Wrong. After spending many years on Mass Transit i've >come to the conclusion you can't. > Depends where you live. The sad truth is, most places in America, public transit is wretched. That needs to change. -- Spike: You know why I really hate you, Summers? Fuffy: 'Cause I'm a stuckup tightass with no sense of fun? Spike: Well. Yeah, that covers a lot of it...

2003-01-12 00:34:28+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.188a34d0dead80ba9898c0@news.verizon.net... > In article <BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 > @ix.netcom.com says... > > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > message > > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > > > >to tip. > > > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > > > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > > inches from the car in front of you... > > > You make it sound as if this wouldn't happen with a human driver. Does > technology fail? sure. does it fail as often as a human? not even > close. > > o far your argument is "computer controlled cars could crash" as if that > is some argument against using them at all. If it were, then human > drivers should be abandoned as well. I suppose we should all just walk > everywhere. > > D���sir���e - hoofin' it Nope. People have accidents on foot: heart attacks, strokes, heat exhaustion, twisted ankles, broken feet, stubbed toes, etc. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 00:34:28+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.188a34d0dead80ba9898c0@news.verizon.net... > In article <BTR1702-0A09B9.10182511012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 > @ix.netcom.com says... > > In article <S7YT9.7018$qU5.5388595@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > message > > > news:4dc02v8c035da7ggr211c2r20dk0799igf@4ax.com... > > > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > >Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > > > > >cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > > > > >others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > > > > >to tip. > > > > > > And they can smash into the car in front when it tries to > > > > stop on a patch of ice....... > > > > > Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > > > would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as > > > potholes, puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > > > Until that computer fails. Then you're whipping along at 60 mph only 3 > > inches from the car in front of you... > > > You make it sound as if this wouldn't happen with a human driver. Does > technology fail? sure. does it fail as often as a human? not even > close. > > o far your argument is "computer controlled cars could crash" as if that > is some argument against using them at all. If it were, then human > drivers should be abandoned as well. I suppose we should all just walk > everywhere. > > D���sir���e - hoofin' it Nope. People have accidents on foot: heart attacks, strokes, heat exhaustion, twisted ankles, broken feet, stubbed toes, etc. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 01:08:00+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Anna from Georgia" <rip64@surfsouth.com> wrote in message news:mf0U9.4940$Dq.508492@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:87k02v4nkgsq0vhojmgm1sfbc7rqo8hjfs@4ax.com... > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > I remember being surprised in the late > > >80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / > > >Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. > > > > The Mercury Sable is a Ford Taurus with a different name > > plate. > > > But a Cougar is nothing like an Escort, I think those two must match some > other car. > > Anna Or maybe it was the Mercury Topaz. Then again I think I might have meant the Ford Tempo. -- Ken from Chicago (who's getting senile at the old age of 34)

2003-01-12 01:08:00+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Anna from Georgia" <rip64@surfsouth.com> wrote in message news:mf0U9.4940$Dq.508492@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net... > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:87k02v4nkgsq0vhojmgm1sfbc7rqo8hjfs@4ax.com... > > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > I remember being surprised in the late > > >80s finding out the Mercury and Ford lines were near-clones Ford Taurus / > > >Mercury Sable, Ford Escort / Mercury Cougar, etc. > > > > The Mercury Sable is a Ford Taurus with a different name > > plate. > > > But a Cougar is nothing like an Escort, I think those two must match some > other car. > > Anna Or maybe it was the Mercury Topaz. Then again I think I might have meant the Ford Tempo. -- Ken from Chicago (who's getting senile at the old age of 34)

2003-01-12 01:15:15+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.188a3801bae487f29898c2@news.verizon.net... > In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, > Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > > >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > > >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY > > >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > > >least those who live in cities. > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > doesn't break down which it does very often). > > I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, > during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. > On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to > get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus > trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has > the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 > minutes later. > > Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works > rather well. you should try it > > D���sir���e - the wheel on the bus go round and round The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. Yeah, it's usually better the closer to urban areas and the greater the population / potential customers, and especially if you are riding during the standard 7-9am / 5-7pm time slots Monday thru Friday. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 01:15:15+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"D���sir���e Davis" <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.188a3801bae487f29898c2@news.verizon.net... > In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, > Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > > >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". I > > >am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take ONLY > > >public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > > >least those who live in cities. > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > doesn't break down which it does very often). > > I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, > during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. > On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to > get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus > trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has > the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 > minutes later. > > Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works > rather well. you should try it > > D���sir���e - the wheel on the bus go round and round The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. Yeah, it's usually better the closer to urban areas and the greater the population / potential customers, and especially if you are riding during the standard 7-9am / 5-7pm time slots Monday thru Friday. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 01:30:55+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (kaboom@7of.9)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:23:31 GMT, D���sir���e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com >says... >> >> > >> >D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >> >your mouth in public >> >> I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point >> out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before >> being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead >> Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. >> >tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and >say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners > >D���sir���e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people >off now **I have a small SUV (Hyundai Santa Fe) and I'll be happy to take you for a ride in it. A few years ago, I had an argument in this NG with another poster over driving vs. smoking. At the time I drove a sedan. I thought of her when I bought the Santa Fe, now I call it Laura. :) According to the state of Michigan, it's a stationwagon. Compared to the car it's shorter, not as wide and the gas mileage is the same to better (on the highway). The papers here in the Detroit area are going crazy over all the SUV bashing. kaboomie

2003-01-12 01:30:55+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (kaboom@7of.9)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:23:31 GMT, D���sir���e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com >says... >> >> > >> >D���sir���e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >> >your mouth in public >> >> I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point >> out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before >> being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead >> Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. >> >tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and >say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners > >D���sir���e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people >off now **I have a small SUV (Hyundai Santa Fe) and I'll be happy to take you for a ride in it. A few years ago, I had an argument in this NG with another poster over driving vs. smoking. At the time I drove a sedan. I thought of her when I bought the Santa Fe, now I call it Laura. :) According to the state of Michigan, it's a stationwagon. Compared to the car it's shorter, not as wide and the gas mileage is the same to better (on the highway). The papers here in the Detroit area are going crazy over all the SUV bashing. kaboomie

2003-01-12 01:39:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 06:48:19 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > But I don't! > I don't even like the $1.52 I noticed last time I drive by my local gas >station. > I'm not PC, but I live in an area where 8 out of 10 vehicles are SUVs >driven by utter idiots. When they aren't regaling some other idiot with >every boring detail of their pathetic lives on a cell phone, they are >looking over their shoulders stopping fights between half a dozen pre-school >brats (not wearing seat belts, of course), or are reading a bloody newspaper >as they drive 6 inches from the back of my car (really happened!). > Do SUVs even have turn signals these days? I can't remember the last >time I saw one being used. > Those things should be charged at least $10,000 a year for a license, >and should require an annual 2 hour off-road all-terrain driving test and >an IQ test for the owner too (to find out if it's bigger than their shoe >size). That ought to cut the numbers on the road back to almost zero. > Although at that they aren't quite as bad as the 30 year old sedans >driven at 9 miles an hour by tiny, senile old ladies. That's the 9th >vehicle out of 10 around here. > The tenth is either a cop, a delivery van or a semi-trailer driven by >someone on speed who hasn't slept in 36 hours. The good drivers. > Oh, and me. Yelling kids, reading newspapers, talking on the phone are not things that only SUV drivers do while driving, it's sounds more like your pissed because you don't have one. The price of gas will go up no matter what, anyone who thinks getting rid of SUV's would lower the price of gas or keep it from going up should rethink their position. If everyone got a car that did 600 mpg, the price of gas would still go sky high. You would put a $10,000 dollar fee on anyone who owns an SUV, I'd do that with anyone caught with any amount of alcohol in their system when driving, give them a year in jail, permanently revoke their license and take their car. I'll vote for your license fee if you'll vote for my alcohol penalties. Botch

2003-01-12 01:39:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 06:48:19 GMT, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > But I don't! > I don't even like the $1.52 I noticed last time I drive by my local gas >station. > I'm not PC, but I live in an area where 8 out of 10 vehicles are SUVs >driven by utter idiots. When they aren't regaling some other idiot with >every boring detail of their pathetic lives on a cell phone, they are >looking over their shoulders stopping fights between half a dozen pre-school >brats (not wearing seat belts, of course), or are reading a bloody newspaper >as they drive 6 inches from the back of my car (really happened!). > Do SUVs even have turn signals these days? I can't remember the last >time I saw one being used. > Those things should be charged at least $10,000 a year for a license, >and should require an annual 2 hour off-road all-terrain driving test and >an IQ test for the owner too (to find out if it's bigger than their shoe >size). That ought to cut the numbers on the road back to almost zero. > Although at that they aren't quite as bad as the 30 year old sedans >driven at 9 miles an hour by tiny, senile old ladies. That's the 9th >vehicle out of 10 around here. > The tenth is either a cop, a delivery van or a semi-trailer driven by >someone on speed who hasn't slept in 36 hours. The good drivers. > Oh, and me. Yelling kids, reading newspapers, talking on the phone are not things that only SUV drivers do while driving, it's sounds more like your pissed because you don't have one. The price of gas will go up no matter what, anyone who thinks getting rid of SUV's would lower the price of gas or keep it from going up should rethink their position. If everyone got a car that did 600 mpg, the price of gas would still go sky high. You would put a $10,000 dollar fee on anyone who owns an SUV, I'd do that with anyone caught with any amount of alcohol in their system when driving, give them a year in jail, permanently revoke their license and take their car. I'll vote for your license fee if you'll vote for my alcohol penalties. Botch

2003-01-12 02:03:12+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:04:58 GMT, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: <SNIP> I have seen that letter taped to the counter at local gas stations. > >Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in >the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where >the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and >into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve >gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. > >Deb. If they drive like jerks, than they deserve to get stuck in the ditches. I would just as soon hold off on the $3/gallon fuel though, as that would be painful to me as well, even in my car. Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:03:12+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:04:58 GMT, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: <SNIP> I have seen that letter taped to the counter at local gas stations. > >Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in >the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where >the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and >into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve >gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. > >Deb. If they drive like jerks, than they deserve to get stuck in the ditches. I would just as soon hold off on the $3/gallon fuel though, as that would be painful to me as well, even in my car. Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:07:15+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


Segway?

2003-01-12 02:07:15+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (sillyman@famous.com)


Segway?

2003-01-12 02:09:17+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:55:46 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. >Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? >Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? > I have been stuck for about 20 minutes on the subway. The stupid little "beep beep beep... We are experiencing technical problems..." announcement going off every goddamn 20 seconds. We know already! We're all the exact same people who were here 20 seconds ago! We still remember, and you can shut the damn message off now!! That is what I said to myself, I did! Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:09:17+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:55:46 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. >Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? >Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? > I have been stuck for about 20 minutes on the subway. The stupid little "beep beep beep... We are experiencing technical problems..." announcement going off every goddamn 20 seconds. We know already! We're all the exact same people who were here 20 seconds ago! We still remember, and you can shut the damn message off now!! That is what I said to myself, I did! Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:11:02+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways >where they refused to open the door. > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:11:02+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways >where they refused to open the door. > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:13:23+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:53:03 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >There were many times when I would go to take Mass Transit >into town and would take upwards of six hours (or more). >That in my book is completely unacceptable. Not when >I can drive there in 15 minutes. > That would be a case of public transit not working! Remember, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that there are a couple of cities that have decent public transit. Most absolutely do not! Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:13:23+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:53:03 -0500, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >There were many times when I would go to take Mass Transit >into town and would take upwards of six hours (or more). >That in my book is completely unacceptable. Not when >I can drive there in 15 minutes. > That would be a case of public transit not working! Remember, I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying that there are a couple of cities that have decent public transit. Most absolutely do not! Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:17:38+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >Sure she could, in a station wagon. Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn business! Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:17:38+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >Sure she could, in a station wagon. Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn business! Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:24:40+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:15:15 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > You're from Chicago. How many times have you been stranded on the Kennedy or the Eisenhower expressways, enduring a gruelling 5 mile, 45 minute ride, watching the L trains zoom by in the medians? The side by side comparison is pretty eye opening sometimes. It all just depends were you are going and what you are doing, though, I guess. Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:24:40+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:15:15 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > You're from Chicago. How many times have you been stranded on the Kennedy or the Eisenhower expressways, enduring a gruelling 5 mile, 45 minute ride, watching the L trains zoom by in the medians? The side by side comparison is pretty eye opening sometimes. It all just depends were you are going and what you are doing, though, I guess. Stimpson

2003-01-12 02:45:58+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ie812v0765o68pkfetojbpgd2cg1lc2f8n@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow > >down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor > >lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" that > >fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface from > >20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect > >icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect > >thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by water > >or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and > >fog far better than mere human vision. > And after all that they will still drive 60mph and be in for > a rude awakening when it comes time to stop. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- No, they could drive 120 mph and swerve around or simply drive right over it, knowing not to try and turn on the patch, of to adjust speed and turn ratios to account for the slickness of ice given the temperature, humidity precipitation, traffic conditions--especially if networked to other vehicles who've already driven over the patch. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:45:58+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ie812v0765o68pkfetojbpgd2cg1lc2f8n@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Ah, but better, EARLIER detection of icy patches would allow cars to slow > >down or even avoid the ice. By using infrared sensors and thermal sensor > >lasers (e.g., at work the engineers have handheld laser thermal "guns" that > >fire lasers which can be read to measure the temperature of a surface from > >20-30-50 feet away) that would continually sweep ahead a car could detect > >icy patches or even puddles. Along with radar and sonar, it could detect > >thickness of ice or depth of puddle or even potholes covered over by water > >or snow or leaves. Plus they would be able to penetrate precipitation and > >fog far better than mere human vision. > And after all that they will still drive 60mph and be in for > a rude awakening when it comes time to stop. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- No, they could drive 120 mph and swerve around or simply drive right over it, knowing not to try and turn on the patch, of to adjust speed and turn ratios to account for the slickness of ice given the temperature, humidity precipitation, traffic conditions--especially if networked to other vehicles who've already driven over the patch. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:47:40+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:om812v8hih56b039mso34m1db75c5mr0bm@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a > >catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the > >following cars know you're switching to manual control and to automatically > >slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. > What backup computers? My understanding is cars today have > 300 computers and no backups. > > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- I'm not talking about current cars. I'm talking about cars we SHOULD frelling have 3 years into the 21st century. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:47:40+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:om812v8hih56b039mso34m1db75c5mr0bm@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >And then one of the 3, 4, 5 backup computers take over and even during a > >catastrophic failure, a signal or light could be emitted to let the > >following cars know you're switching to manual control and to automatically > >slow the car down to increase distance from the preceding car. > What backup computers? My understanding is cars today have > 300 computers and no backups. > > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- I'm not talking about current cars. I'm talking about cars we SHOULD frelling have 3 years into the 21st century. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:49:31+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gv812vc3ocmd3lrbmb40snccuupbmst1u0@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Ah, but then you have to worry about getting your car out--eventually. > That is what tow trucks are for........ > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- If you have a tunnel full of stuck cars you have a wee bit of a towing problem. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:49:31+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:gv812vc3ocmd3lrbmb40snccuupbmst1u0@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Ah, but then you have to worry about getting your car out--eventually. > That is what tow trucks are for........ > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- If you have a tunnel full of stuck cars you have a wee bit of a towing problem. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:51:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Silverlock" <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8a712vc5j1lbl0o4v5g5qr49klorvgjqsp@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock > ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> >> > > >> >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> >> > garage. > >> >> > > >> >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> >> > School > >> >> > of Social Hypocrisy. > >> >> > >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >> >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > >> >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >> >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >> >> least those who live in cities. > >> >> > >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >> >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >> >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >> >> valid. > >> > > >> >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >> >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >> >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >> >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > > >> >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, > >> >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > >> > > >> >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > >> >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > >> >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >> >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > >> >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >> >like everyone else. > >> > > >> >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > >> >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >> >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > >> >his talk show, guess what he did? > >> > > >> >"I gotta go to commercial." > >> > >> Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? > > > >Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't > >just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an > >"environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > > > > Did I say natural gas? No I said gasoline or crude oil both of which > are used by SUV's and neither of which are used by houses. > > > >> For all > >> you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind > >> power. > > > >Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I > >made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his > >block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try > >again. > > > > And those utilities could come from solar, wind, geothermal, or > hydropower. You don't know, I don't know. Houses can be changed to run > from alternate energy sources easily but an SUV always uses more gas > then a smaller car. Unless it's a hybrid or alternative fuel car. > >> People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space > >> taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. > > > >Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be > >doing with my own personal property. > > Actually it is, I vote green. > > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > all. > -- > Silverlock, ICQ 474725, > > > Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system > will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage > to persons or structures from use of this product. > Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration. > -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:51:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Silverlock" <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:8a712vc5j1lbl0o4v5g5qr49klorvgjqsp@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock > ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> >> > > >> >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear who > >> >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my lifestyle > >> >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> >> > garage. > >> >> > > >> >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> >> > School > >> >> > of Social Hypocrisy. > >> >> > >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >> >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > >> >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >> >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > >> >> least those who live in cities. > >> >> > >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >> >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and less > >> >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message is > >> >> valid. > >> > > >> >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were producing > >> >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >> >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* for > >> >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > > >> >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a Mini-Cooper, > >> >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > >> > > >> >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who drive > >> >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy it > >> >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >> >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, he'd > >> >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >> >like everyone else. > >> > > >> >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV driver > >> >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >> >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point on > >> >his talk show, guess what he did? > >> > > >> >"I gotta go to commercial." > >> > >> Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? > > > >Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't > >just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an > >"environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > > > > Did I say natural gas? No I said gasoline or crude oil both of which > are used by SUV's and neither of which are used by houses. > > > >> For all > >> you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind > >> power. > > > >Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I > >made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his > >block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try > >again. > > > > And those utilities could come from solar, wind, geothermal, or > hydropower. You don't know, I don't know. Houses can be changed to run > from alternate energy sources easily but an SUV always uses more gas > then a smaller car. Unless it's a hybrid or alternative fuel car. > >> People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space > >> taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. > > > >Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be > >doing with my own personal property. > > Actually it is, I vote green. > > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > all. > -- > Silverlock, ICQ 474725, > > > Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system > will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage > to persons or structures from use of this product. > Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration. > -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:52:54+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:h2912v05kc5gnp9mvni1okcotjkqovsrlp@4ax.com... > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's > >not in the job description. > Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected > officiall is to get reelelcted. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Not all. Some are willing to be 1-termers. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:52:54+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:h2912v05kc5gnp9mvni1okcotjkqovsrlp@4ax.com... > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's > >not in the job description. > Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected > officiall is to get reelelcted. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Not all. Some are willing to be 1-termers. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:58:47+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b8912v4psbuapg725duiafmt3dcu3ji1j7@4ax.com... > > > >> And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it > >> would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads > >> could be torn up to make room for parks. > You've never seen how much pollution a bus dumps in to the > air have you? > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- 60 people on 1 bus vs 15 cars or more likely 60 cars. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 02:58:47+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b8912v4psbuapg725duiafmt3dcu3ji1j7@4ax.com... > > > >> And if everyone who lived in a city took public transportation it > >> would solve the smog problem, use less oil and gas, and the roads > >> could be torn up to make room for parks. > You've never seen how much pollution a bus dumps in to the > air have you? > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- 60 people on 1 bus vs 15 cars or more likely 60 cars. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 03:57:46-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >>Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors >>would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, >>puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. >After living through many hard winters up here in the >northland I doubt it. Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about anything. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 03:57:46-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >>Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors >>would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, >>puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. >After living through many hard winters up here in the >northland I doubt it. Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about anything. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:13:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3E207303.A33A7C74@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >BTR1701 wrote: >> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >> > BTR1701 wrote: >> > > Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >> > > > BTR1701 wrote: >> > > > > Chelsea Christenson<Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars >> > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay >> > > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. >> > > > > And you know this how? >> > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. >> > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person >> > > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood >> > > that something is the case. >> > Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying >> > desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. >> > Quit while you're behind, already. >> Yeah, right. You claim Lear's cars are probably collectors pieces and >> when asked what shred of evidence you have for that statement, you >> provide none. And you say *I'm* in a corner? Wow. >How long have you been speaking English? Do you understand how "probably" >gets used in colloquial conversation? Are you even remotely familiar with >the use of "probably" in making a guess? Yes. And he's right, and you're wrong. Probably means "very likely." It doesn't mean "maybe," "could be," or "might be." Most people don't think very clearly, of course, so they don't speak very clearly. But you should learn to say what you mean -- in colloquial or formal settings. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:13:19-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <3E207303.A33A7C74@oracle.com>, Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >BTR1701 wrote: >> Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >> > BTR1701 wrote: >> > > Chelsea Christenson <Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >> > > > BTR1701 wrote: >> > > > > Chelsea Christenson<Chelsea.Christenson@oracle.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars >> > > > > > They're probably collectibles that aren't ever driven. Like Jay >> > > > > > Leno's collection of cars and motorcycles. >> > > > > And you know this how? >> > > > The word "probably" indicates that I don't "know" it at all. >> > > Well, the word "probably" means "a high likelihood" and a normal person >> > > would have some evidence before claiming there's a highly likelihood >> > > that something is the case. >> > Only a newcomer to the English language or someone who's trying >> > desperately to fight his way out of a corner would make such an argument. >> > Quit while you're behind, already. >> Yeah, right. You claim Lear's cars are probably collectors pieces and >> when asked what shred of evidence you have for that statement, you >> provide none. And you say *I'm* in a corner? Wow. >How long have you been speaking English? Do you understand how "probably" >gets used in colloquial conversation? Are you even remotely familiar with >the use of "probably" in making a guess? Yes. And he's right, and you're wrong. Probably means "very likely." It doesn't mean "maybe," "could be," or "might be." Most people don't think very clearly, of course, so they don't speak very clearly. But you should learn to say what you mean -- in colloquial or formal settings. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:28:54-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


> Support requires willful action. buying gas is a willful action with > the expressed goal of buying gas. That gas may or may not be purchased > from an arab nation but regardless, the car owner has no direct or > indirect dealing with terrorists; the oil company does. So then buying drugs doesn't support terrorism either. (I don't happen to think it does, but that is the message the suv=terrorism ads are in response to) > And the lie of the argument rears it's ugly head again. either *all* > car owners who buy gas, or none, are supporting terrorism. You don't > get to slice up the pie based on the type of car. Who said they *all* aren't? But there are degrees to things, and some people are doing it *more* than others. There are a lot of reasons to hate SUVs. Fuel consumption is only one. > Being a free individual, not needing to justify my > consumption to you or anyone else, I "need" however much gas I use. No one said you did. However, *needs* are a valid method of evaluating proper use. Would you be happy if people walked into a hospital and demanded a blood transfusion they didn't need? If they called the fire department out for fun? No, that would be a horrific waste of valuable resources. So are SUVs, most of the time. PS - I don't buy (or accept) diamonds for much the same reason I hate OPEC and SUV owners. No, I don't think the diamond in this particular piece of jewelry necessarily came from a group chopping off kid's hands in Sierra Leone, but that's where a portion of diamonds comes from, and supporting the industry supports the atrocities (http://www.fataltransactions.org/). Unfortunately, when it comes to oil, it's essentially impossible to eliminate all uses from your life. So I do all I can, and meanwhile, I rally against OPEC.

2003-01-12 04:28:54-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


> Support requires willful action. buying gas is a willful action with > the expressed goal of buying gas. That gas may or may not be purchased > from an arab nation but regardless, the car owner has no direct or > indirect dealing with terrorists; the oil company does. So then buying drugs doesn't support terrorism either. (I don't happen to think it does, but that is the message the suv=terrorism ads are in response to) > And the lie of the argument rears it's ugly head again. either *all* > car owners who buy gas, or none, are supporting terrorism. You don't > get to slice up the pie based on the type of car. Who said they *all* aren't? But there are degrees to things, and some people are doing it *more* than others. There are a lot of reasons to hate SUVs. Fuel consumption is only one. > Being a free individual, not needing to justify my > consumption to you or anyone else, I "need" however much gas I use. No one said you did. However, *needs* are a valid method of evaluating proper use. Would you be happy if people walked into a hospital and demanded a blood transfusion they didn't need? If they called the fire department out for fun? No, that would be a horrific waste of valuable resources. So are SUVs, most of the time. PS - I don't buy (or accept) diamonds for much the same reason I hate OPEC and SUV owners. No, I don't think the diamond in this particular piece of jewelry necessarily came from a group chopping off kid's hands in Sierra Leone, but that's where a portion of diamonds comes from, and supporting the industry supports the atrocities (http://www.fataltransactions.org/). Unfortunately, when it comes to oil, it's essentially impossible to eliminate all uses from your life. So I do all I can, and meanwhile, I rally against OPEC.

2003-01-12 04:37:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <uVZT9.39321$3v.5964@sccrnsc01>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >> groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >> trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >> some way. >Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. Actually, it doesn't. >Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local >newspaper here - submitted for your approval Yes, an idiotic spam email, forwarded by people who don't understand basic economics. There are world oil markets, and oil is a fungible commodity. It doesn't matter where you get your oil from. If you substitute non-middle eastern oil for middle eastern oil, then someone else gets the middle eastern oil, and the same money goes to the middle east. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:37:01-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <uVZT9.39321$3v.5964@sccrnsc01>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >> groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >> trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >> some way. >Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. Actually, it doesn't. >Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local >newspaper here - submitted for your approval Yes, an idiotic spam email, forwarded by people who don't understand basic economics. There are world oil markets, and oil is a fungible commodity. It doesn't matter where you get your oil from. If you substitute non-middle eastern oil for middle eastern oil, then someone else gets the middle eastern oil, and the same money goes to the middle east. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:42:39-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >'utility' needs. I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:42:39-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >'utility' needs. I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 04:47:21-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Botch wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >>>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>>not in the job description. >> >>Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >>officiall is to get reelelcted. >> > > > Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in > office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal > agenda and not part of their job. > I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't > make it right. Most things most people do aren't "right" but that doesn't mean that's not what they do.

2003-01-12 04:47:21-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Botch wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >>>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>>not in the job description. >> >>Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >>officiall is to get reelelcted. >> > > > Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in > office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal > agenda and not part of their job. > I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't > make it right. Most things most people do aren't "right" but that doesn't mean that's not what they do.

2003-01-12 04:48:03-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Ken wrote: > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:vhj12vggqrp0qip1d7e9cmp3urlk9m7ivm@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > > >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > > >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > > >where they refused to open the door. > > > > > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus > > though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. > > > > Stimpson > > > > But what if the bus driver says "No"? Then its time to engage in a Rosa Parks style civil rights movement.

2003-01-12 04:48:03-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Ken wrote: > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:vhj12vggqrp0qip1d7e9cmp3urlk9m7ivm@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > > >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > > >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > > >where they refused to open the door. > > > > > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus > > though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. > > > > Stimpson > > > > But what if the bus driver says "No"? Then its time to engage in a Rosa Parks style civil rights movement.

2003-01-12 05:04:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


>>>>Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the >>>>people" don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. >>> >>> >>>That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. >>>That's what they are for. >> >>yeah, and they are all selfish assholes too.... so, what's your point? > > > Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our > elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. The function of a > Hollywood celebrity is to act well and look pretty, not to preach to me > about how to live. > > Here endeth the point. I guess what I'm not understanding is, you don't think Ariana Huffington and Norman Lear should be making the connection between excessive oil use and terrorism, because they use a lot of oil. You think our elected officials should make this point. (Really, I guess you think no one should make this point, but if someone has to do it, it should be our elected officials). Now, my point was, our elected efficials also live in "oil-drenched luxury" - they take helicopters and private jets, etc. everywhere - the majority of them have (at least one) very large home. Many of them (particular in the upper levels of federal government) are directly involved in the oil industry. So, wouldn't you STILL have problems with this "message" if it came from them? They'd still be hyprocrits, yes? That was my original point - all people become hyprocrits when they have the funds to do so. Anyway, right or wrong, many Hollywood celebrities feel they have an obligation of some sort to "use their popularity for a good cause" - such as being spokespeople for charities, etc. I think if I was making these commercials (http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/ads/default.htm), I would have done them a lot differently - not targeted SUVs (why does everyone always take the easy shots?) but just made the oil/terrorism connection and encouraged people to encourage their "elected leaders" to stop buying OPEC oil - use American and non-OPEC countires for our fuel needs, and push raising fuel-efficiency standards. (Most exprets agree that SUVs can be made more fuel efficient - not my area of expertise, though.) Even if OPEC doesn't support terrorism, even if NO oil does, OPEC is STILL a price fixing cartel, something illegal in the US. So, why do we buy from them?

2003-01-12 05:04:26-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


>>>>Again, the only people who can afford to "get the message to the >>>>people" don't follow "the message" and that's all there is too it. >>> >>> >>>That's crap. Our elected leaders could get the message to the people. >>>That's what they are for. >> >>yeah, and they are all selfish assholes too.... so, what's your point? > > > Okay, I'll print the point again for you: one of the functions of our > elected leaders is to get "messages" to the people. The function of a > Hollywood celebrity is to act well and look pretty, not to preach to me > about how to live. > > Here endeth the point. I guess what I'm not understanding is, you don't think Ariana Huffington and Norman Lear should be making the connection between excessive oil use and terrorism, because they use a lot of oil. You think our elected officials should make this point. (Really, I guess you think no one should make this point, but if someone has to do it, it should be our elected officials). Now, my point was, our elected efficials also live in "oil-drenched luxury" - they take helicopters and private jets, etc. everywhere - the majority of them have (at least one) very large home. Many of them (particular in the upper levels of federal government) are directly involved in the oil industry. So, wouldn't you STILL have problems with this "message" if it came from them? They'd still be hyprocrits, yes? That was my original point - all people become hyprocrits when they have the funds to do so. Anyway, right or wrong, many Hollywood celebrities feel they have an obligation of some sort to "use their popularity for a good cause" - such as being spokespeople for charities, etc. I think if I was making these commercials (http://www.americansforfuelefficientcars.org/ads/default.htm), I would have done them a lot differently - not targeted SUVs (why does everyone always take the easy shots?) but just made the oil/terrorism connection and encouraged people to encourage their "elected leaders" to stop buying OPEC oil - use American and non-OPEC countires for our fuel needs, and push raising fuel-efficiency standards. (Most exprets agree that SUVs can be made more fuel efficient - not my area of expertise, though.) Even if OPEC doesn't support terrorism, even if NO oil does, OPEC is STILL a price fixing cartel, something illegal in the US. So, why do we buy from them?

2003-01-12 05:07:58-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > >>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>>It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >> > >>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >>'utility' needs. > > > I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't > "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? Why are people so offended by the word "need"? OK, so most Americans consume more than just the things they would die without. The point is, in theory, we are "running out of fossil fuels". So, people who use it wantonly should have to answer to the rest of us. (Not that I really believe most of what people say about "running out of fossil fuels" but that's a different discussion)

2003-01-12 05:07:58-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


David Marc Nieporent wrote: > In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > >>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>>It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >> > >>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >>'utility' needs. > > > I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't > "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? Why are people so offended by the word "need"? OK, so most Americans consume more than just the things they would die without. The point is, in theory, we are "running out of fossil fuels". So, people who use it wantonly should have to answer to the rest of us. (Not that I really believe most of what people say about "running out of fossil fuels" but that's a different discussion)

2003-01-12 05:09:35+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <BTR1702-3B58BE.14200411012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <uVZT9.39321$3v.5964@sccrnsc01>, "Deborah Terreson" > <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > >> ---------- >> In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat >> <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> >> >> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >> >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >> >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> >> >> > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >> > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >> > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >> > some way. >> >> Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. >> >> Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local >> newspaper here - submitted for your approval >> >> ...... >> >> Fight Terrorism >> Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the >> coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don�t import >> their >> oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities >> of >> middle-eastern oil. >> >> Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: >> >> (for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). >> >> Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. >> Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. >> Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. >> Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. >> Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. >> >> >> If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over >> $18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do >> not import middle-eastern oil. >> >> >> Citgo: 0 barrels. >> Sunoco: 0 barrels >> Conoco: 0 barrels >> Sinclair: 0 barrels. >> BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. >> Hess: 0 barrels. >> >> All this information is available from the department of energy and can >> be >> easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state >> where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on >> a >> monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. >> >> > >> > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >> > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >> > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >> > 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The >> > same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh >> > gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, >> > but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a >> > damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. >> >> Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >> machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >> likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like >> in the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most >> where the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >> England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road >> and into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >> coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >> for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they >> deserve gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. > > All that is well and good but most SUV drivers I know have them because > of the utility-- i.e., the ability to carry loads of stuff that just > won't fit in a regular size car. I dunno if I buy that.. Before I got my Hi-Lux pickup, I had an '82 Celica hatchback. I could fit an 8 foot stepladder into it, and close the back! Even wtih the truck I have now, the bed is only 7 feet, so it sticks out. Given the large frame underbody construction of SUV's versus the unibody design of some of the wagons and sedans you can get some very large volume cars that can hold as much, if not more than an SUV. > > It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual 'utility' needs. Deb.

2003-01-12 05:09:35+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <BTR1702-3B58BE.14200411012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > In article <uVZT9.39321$3v.5964@sccrnsc01>, "Deborah Terreson" > <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > >> ---------- >> In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat >> <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >> >> >> > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> >>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >> >>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >> >>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >> >> >> > It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >> > groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >> > trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >> > some way. >> >> Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. >> >> Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local >> newspaper here - submitted for your approval >> >> ...... >> >> Fight Terrorism >> Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the >> coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don�t import >> their >> oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities >> of >> middle-eastern oil. >> >> Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: >> >> (for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). >> >> Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. >> Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. >> Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. >> Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. >> Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. >> >> >> If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over >> $18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do >> not import middle-eastern oil. >> >> >> Citgo: 0 barrels. >> Sunoco: 0 barrels >> Conoco: 0 barrels >> Sinclair: 0 barrels. >> BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. >> Hess: 0 barrels. >> >> All this information is available from the department of energy and can >> be >> easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state >> where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on >> a >> monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. >> >> > >> > Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >> > that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >> > that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >> > 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The >> > same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh >> > gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, >> > but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a >> > damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. >> >> Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >> machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >> likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like >> in the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most >> where the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >> England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road >> and into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >> coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >> for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they >> deserve gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. > > All that is well and good but most SUV drivers I know have them because > of the utility-- i.e., the ability to carry loads of stuff that just > won't fit in a regular size car. I dunno if I buy that.. Before I got my Hi-Lux pickup, I had an '82 Celica hatchback. I could fit an 8 foot stepladder into it, and close the back! Even wtih the truck I have now, the bed is only 7 feet, so it sticks out. Given the large frame underbody construction of SUV's versus the unibody design of some of the wagons and sedans you can get some very large volume cars that can hold as much, if not more than an SUV. > > It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual 'utility' needs. Deb.

2003-01-12 05:23:25+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <j0j12vk68vn52k3t6ccodqgmm2c08kse85@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:04:58 GMT, "Deborah Terreson" > <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > I have seen that letter taped to the counter at local gas stations. >> >>Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >>machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >>likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in >>the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where >>the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >>England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and >>into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >>coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >>for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve >>gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. >> >>Deb. > > If they drive like jerks, than they deserve to get stuck in the > ditches. > > I would just as soon hold off on the $3/gallon fuel though, as that > would be painful to me as well, even in my car. > Yeah.. but think of just how much MORE painful it will be for the nitwits in the SUV's. We got an annoyingly large amount of Idle Rich that live in this area, - it's a little, historic, New England city, with small, narrow streets - there are now over a half dozen Hummers in the neighborhood (you want to talk about a stupid status vehicle? These things are about it - and totally useless because of their size in more instances than not) - the things are barely managing to make it through some of the streets in the south end (Big News - the City is running out of space to put the snow that's been cleared out of downtown - south end residents can expect another two or three weeks of 7 foot tall snowbanks and virtually impassible streets), and these fools are using them to drive to get groceries - at how many MPG in the city? No, I'd be stung pretty good as well, if gas went up to 3 bucks a gallon, but I'll be smilin' at the fools who are paying nearly 120 bucks just to fill up. Oh yeah, that's impressive! <not!> Deb.

2003-01-12 05:23:25+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <j0j12vk68vn52k3t6ccodqgmm2c08kse85@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 19:04:58 GMT, "Deborah Terreson" > <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > I have seen that letter taped to the counter at local gas stations. >> >>Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >>machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >>likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in >>the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where >>the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >>England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and >>into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >>coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >>for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve >>gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. >> >>Deb. > > If they drive like jerks, than they deserve to get stuck in the > ditches. > > I would just as soon hold off on the $3/gallon fuel though, as that > would be painful to me as well, even in my car. > Yeah.. but think of just how much MORE painful it will be for the nitwits in the SUV's. We got an annoyingly large amount of Idle Rich that live in this area, - it's a little, historic, New England city, with small, narrow streets - there are now over a half dozen Hummers in the neighborhood (you want to talk about a stupid status vehicle? These things are about it - and totally useless because of their size in more instances than not) - the things are barely managing to make it through some of the streets in the south end (Big News - the City is running out of space to put the snow that's been cleared out of downtown - south end residents can expect another two or three weeks of 7 foot tall snowbanks and virtually impassible streets), and these fools are using them to drive to get groceries - at how many MPG in the city? No, I'd be stung pretty good as well, if gas went up to 3 bucks a gallon, but I'll be smilin' at the fools who are paying nearly 120 bucks just to fill up. Oh yeah, that's impressive! <not!> Deb.

2003-01-12 05:32:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <7sl12v8h2egv0irajvq5n4isnmhil4hoer@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works >>rather well. you should try it > Actually this is Boston. The Green line for many years had > trains that started running in the 1920s. And those trains > from the 20s were more reliable than the new cars they > bought from Boeing a few years ago? (of course Boeing had > never made a subway train bofore but that was besides the > point. It had major problems as a result). After the > Boeing trains they bought new ones that had to > be completely rebuilt because of problems.) > > Then there is the Red Line where the trains > have trouble with ice. (This is New England...like > we never get ice). The trains also had major > mechanical problems. > > The orange line and the blue are just as bad. > > The purple line (commuter rail) is just as bad. > > One of the big problems is the system can't handle > the crush of people. (Think it can? Just go to > Kenmore Square after a Red Sox game or > go to Arlington Station after the July 4th concert > on the Esplanade.) No doubt! I live in Portsmouth, and the train woes are the main reason we don't go to Boston to eat anymore.. Damn shame too, there's no good Pho or Dim-Sum restaurants north of the city. Fuck it, I'll take the Downeaster into Portland, they've got a killer Indian restaurant called the Tandoor and DeMillo's isn't anything to sniff at either. Deb.

2003-01-12 05:32:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <7sl12v8h2egv0irajvq5n4isnmhil4hoer@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works >>rather well. you should try it > Actually this is Boston. The Green line for many years had > trains that started running in the 1920s. And those trains > from the 20s were more reliable than the new cars they > bought from Boeing a few years ago? (of course Boeing had > never made a subway train bofore but that was besides the > point. It had major problems as a result). After the > Boeing trains they bought new ones that had to > be completely rebuilt because of problems.) > > Then there is the Red Line where the trains > have trouble with ice. (This is New England...like > we never get ice). The trains also had major > mechanical problems. > > The orange line and the blue are just as bad. > > The purple line (commuter rail) is just as bad. > > One of the big problems is the system can't handle > the crush of people. (Think it can? Just go to > Kenmore Square after a Red Sox game or > go to Arlington Station after the July 4th concert > on the Esplanade.) No doubt! I live in Portsmouth, and the train woes are the main reason we don't go to Boston to eat anymore.. Damn shame too, there's no good Pho or Dim-Sum restaurants north of the city. Fuck it, I'll take the Downeaster into Portland, they've got a killer Indian restaurant called the Tandoor and DeMillo's isn't anything to sniff at either. Deb.

2003-01-12 06:48:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... > > >---------- >In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat ><house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >>> >> It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >> groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >> trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >> some way. > >Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. > >Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local >newspaper here - submitted for your approval > >...... > >Fight Terrorism >Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the >coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don�t import their >oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities of >middle-eastern oil. > >Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: > >(for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). > >Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. >Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. >Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. >Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. >Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. > > >If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over >$18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do >not import middle-eastern oil. > > >Citgo: 0 barrels. >Sunoco: 0 barrels >Conoco: 0 barrels >Sinclair: 0 barrels. >BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. >Hess: 0 barrels. > >All this information is available from the department of energy and can be >easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state >where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a >monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. > >> >> Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >> that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >> that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >> 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The >> same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh >> gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, >> but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a >> damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. > >Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in >the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where >the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and >into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve >gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. But I don't! I don't even like the $1.52 I noticed last time I drive by my local gas station. I'm not PC, but I live in an area where 8 out of 10 vehicles are SUVs driven by utter idiots. When they aren't regaling some other idiot with every boring detail of their pathetic lives on a cell phone, they are looking over their shoulders stopping fights between half a dozen pre-school brats (not wearing seat belts, of course), or are reading a bloody newspaper as they drive 6 inches from the back of my car (really happened!). Do SUVs even have turn signals these days? I can't remember the last time I saw one being used. Those things should be charged at least $10,000 a year for a license, and should require an annual 2 hour off-road all-terrain driving test and an IQ test for the owner too (to find out if it's bigger than their shoe size). That ought to cut the numbers on the road back to almost zero. Although at that they aren't quite as bad as the 30 year old sedans driven at 9 miles an hour by tiny, senile old ladies. That's the 9th vehicle out of 10 around here. The tenth is either a cop, a delivery van or a semi-trailer driven by someone on speed who hasn't slept in 36 hours. The good drivers. Oh, and me.

2003-01-12 06:48:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... > > >---------- >In article <qpru1vg3i2jr54cdrl5b5ia6kru2gc3m72@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat ><house@next.tuesday> wrote: > > >> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 20:04:54 -0500, Ebie <sybil5000@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Take the same message -- imagine it delivered by someone who doesn't >>>own a even one car or fly a private jet or live in a big house. It >>>doesn't change the validity (or invalidity) of a thing. >>> >> It's not just cars and SUV's that support terrorism. Did you buy >> groceries recently? Those groceries were delivered to the store by >> trucks which used OIL. Hell, almost EVERYTHING is connected to oil in >> some way. > >Ah, but it depends on *where* the oil comes from.. > >Here's a letter urging people to fight terrorism that came from the local >newspaper here - submitted for your approval > >...... > >Fight Terrorism >Everytime you fill up the car,you can avoid putting more money into the >coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy gas from companies that don�t import their >oil from the Saudis. The following oil companies import large quantities of >middle-eastern oil. > >Major companies that import middle-eastern oil: > >(for the period 9/1/00 to 8/31/01). > >Shell: 205,742,000 barrels. >Chevron/Texaco: 144,332,000 barrels. >Exxon/Mobil: 130,082,000 barrels. >Marathon:117,740,000 barrels. >Amoco: 62,231,000 barrels. > > >If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over >$18,ooo,ooo,ooo (eithteen billion)! Here are some large companies that do >not import middle-eastern oil. > > >Citgo: 0 barrels. >Sunoco: 0 barrels >Conoco: 0 barrels >Sinclair: 0 barrels. >BP/Phillips: 0 barrels. >Hess: 0 barrels. > >All this information is available from the department of energy and can be >easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S. are required to state >where they get their oil and how much they are importing. They report on a >monthly basis. Please copy this and pass it on. > >> >> Anyway, what peeves me is not the terrorist connection. I acknowledge >> that that is not altogether innacurate. What irritates me is the fact >> that the PC crowd has been targeting SUVs for a long time now (before >> 9/11). This is just the latest in a string of attacks by PC thugs. The >> same asses who run those stupid "stop the hate" commercials. Like "oh >> gee... I was going to go out and beat up a bunch of mexicans today, >> but know I think I'll stay hame and play nintendo instead". Give me a >> damn break. I will NEVER take these idiots seriously. Nobody should. > >Well, it's true though: SUV's do suck and they are terribly dangerous >machines in that the people that drive them actually think they are less >likely to get stuck in deep snow or mud - who lives on a mountaintop like in >the ads? Most folks that have them, live in banal suburbia, and most where >the weather isn't blizzard conditions all winter - I live in northern New >England. Do you know the number one kind of vehicle usually off the road and >into a snowbank on icy, snowy roads here? Why it's not sedans, sports >coupes, wagons or trucks - it's morons in SUV's! They fucking deserve it >for being cheeba-monkey no-brain stupid trend followers - and they deserve >gas to go to 3 dollars a gallon. But I don't! I don't even like the $1.52 I noticed last time I drive by my local gas station. I'm not PC, but I live in an area where 8 out of 10 vehicles are SUVs driven by utter idiots. When they aren't regaling some other idiot with every boring detail of their pathetic lives on a cell phone, they are looking over their shoulders stopping fights between half a dozen pre-school brats (not wearing seat belts, of course), or are reading a bloody newspaper as they drive 6 inches from the back of my car (really happened!). Do SUVs even have turn signals these days? I can't remember the last time I saw one being used. Those things should be charged at least $10,000 a year for a license, and should require an annual 2 hour off-road all-terrain driving test and an IQ test for the owner too (to find out if it's bigger than their shoe size). That ought to cut the numbers on the road back to almost zero. Although at that they aren't quite as bad as the 30 year old sedans driven at 9 miles an hour by tiny, senile old ladies. That's the 9th vehicle out of 10 around here. The tenth is either a cop, a delivery van or a semi-trailer driven by someone on speed who hasn't slept in 36 hours. The good drivers. Oh, and me.

2003-01-12 07:02:01+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... > > >---------- >In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek ><vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >> Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been >> wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the >> road. > >And get better gas mileage to boot! Those old cars have carburetors in them >- just tweak the things to run lean, run a higher octane fuel, change the >oil and air filters religiously and you can get great economy out of them. >Got me an '83 Toyota Hi-Lux with a Camry engine (22-R, 2.3 litre) in it, >that's nearly 30 mpg on the highway, with a cap on the back! > >Ha! Eat that Mr. Suburban! I have an 89 Corolla with almost 140,000 miles on it that still gets around 32 mpg even though I rarely drive more than 30-40 miles a day and only on local roads. I keep it because the engine and transmission are still working well, and if the power is a little less than it was, the body is rusting away and weighing less so things are sort of evening out. And the radio still works. Besides, I just had to buy a new battery, so I have to keep it over the winter at least to get some return on the money.

2003-01-12 07:02:01+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... > > >---------- >In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek ><vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > > >> Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've been >> wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on the >> road. > >And get better gas mileage to boot! Those old cars have carburetors in them >- just tweak the things to run lean, run a higher octane fuel, change the >oil and air filters religiously and you can get great economy out of them. >Got me an '83 Toyota Hi-Lux with a Camry engine (22-R, 2.3 litre) in it, >that's nearly 30 mpg on the highway, with a cap on the back! > >Ha! Eat that Mr. Suburban! I have an 89 Corolla with almost 140,000 miles on it that still gets around 32 mpg even though I rarely drive more than 30-40 miles a day and only on local roads. I keep it because the engine and transmission are still working well, and if the power is a little less than it was, the body is rusting away and weighing less so things are sort of evening out. And the radio still works. Besides, I just had to buy a new battery, so I have to keep it over the winter at least to get some return on the money.

2003-01-12 07:12:04+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


kaboom@7of.9 wrote in message <3e20c090.6353849@news2.wwnet.net>... >On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:23:31 GMT, D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com >>says... >>> >>> > >>> >D�sir�e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >>> >your mouth in public >>> >>> I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point >>> out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before >>> being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead >>> Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. >>> >>tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and >>say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners >> >>D�sir�e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people >>off now > >**I have a small SUV (Hyundai Santa Fe) and I'll be happy to take you >for a ride in it. A few years ago, I had an argument in this NG with >another poster over driving vs. smoking. At the time I drove a sedan. >I thought of her when I bought the Santa Fe, now I call it Laura. :) >According to the state of Michigan, it's a stationwagon. Compared to >the car it's shorter, not as wide and the gas mileage is the same to >better (on the highway). The papers here in the Detroit area are going >crazy over all the SUV bashing. And I wonder why that would be? Detroit is the place where I rented a car only to find it had a dead battery, went back to the office and got another car, only that one had no reverse gear. Both proudly, but badly, built by Ford workers in the USA, probably in the Detroit area. The home of the theory that if it gets more than 15 mpg, weighs less than 1 1/2 tons and actually works it isn't a real car. At least the model T worked. Then they figured that making bad cars was more profitable.

2003-01-12 07:12:04+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


kaboom@7of.9 wrote in message <3e20c090.6353849@news2.wwnet.net>... >On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 22:23:31 GMT, D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >>In article <3e209646.5362030@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com >>says... >>> >>> > >>> >D�sir�e - Logic 101 should be a requirement before being allowed to open >>> >your mouth in public >>> >>> I sympathise very much with your position. I must regretfully point >>> out, however, that we are all required to pass a driving test before >>> being licensed and you see how well that is working out. You can lead >>> Ms. Huff to logic, but you can't make her think. >>> >>tge truly scary part is all the people here rushing to defend her and >>say she's right about those damn evil unAmerican SUV owners >> >>D�sir�e - if I were allowed to drive, I'd get an SUV just to piss people >>off now > >**I have a small SUV (Hyundai Santa Fe) and I'll be happy to take you >for a ride in it. A few years ago, I had an argument in this NG with >another poster over driving vs. smoking. At the time I drove a sedan. >I thought of her when I bought the Santa Fe, now I call it Laura. :) >According to the state of Michigan, it's a stationwagon. Compared to >the car it's shorter, not as wide and the gas mileage is the same to >better (on the highway). The papers here in the Detroit area are going >crazy over all the SUV bashing. And I wonder why that would be? Detroit is the place where I rented a car only to find it had a dead battery, went back to the office and got another car, only that one had no reverse gear. Both proudly, but badly, built by Ford workers in the USA, probably in the Detroit area. The home of the theory that if it gets more than 15 mpg, weighs less than 1 1/2 tons and actually works it isn't a real car. At least the model T worked. Then they figured that making bad cars was more profitable.

2003-01-12 08:48:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <3E20A301.1090801@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > In article <3E1E4FD2.3050901@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > > > > > >>I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund > >>these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to > >>stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to > >>charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't > >>do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, > >>but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their > >>lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken > >>clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 > >>or something :) ) > > > > > > The message is not valid. Pointing at SUVs and ignoring every other > > driver on the road is logically wrong. It's incorrect. It's a fallacy. > > An untruth. Vehicles use gas. Slanderously labeling a portion of > > vehicle owners as supporters of terrorism is not a good message at all. > > Whatever pount she had has been irrevocably damaged. > > Well, although the drug commercials keep pointing out, it's not OK to > support terrorism "a little", I'm happy in the knowledge that I support > terrorism much less than SUV owners. Support requires willful action. buying gas is a willful action with the expressed goal of buying gas. That gas may or may not be purchased from an arab nation but regardless, the car owner has no direct or indirect dealing with terrorists; the oil company does. > > If you want to use the minimum amount of oil you can to stay alive, keep > working, and have a reasonable standard of living, you don't drive an > SUV unless you have too. And the lie of the argument rears it's ugly head again. either *all* car owners who buy gas, or none, are supporting terrorism. You don't get to slice up the pie based on the type of car. Perhaps everyone should have a gas quota. If you have an SUV but only drive it occasionally, you'll be fine. If you have a sports car and like to take aimless treks up and down the coast, you might have a problem. The commercials focus on an easy target, but don't really address the real problem. Typical mushy headed thinking that any logic 101 student can easily see through. > > As I pointed out in another post, I don't drive, don't own a car, and > take public transportation exclusively (and have for years, in many > different cities, so I know most of the horror stories about how bad > public transportation is are just excuses people use to justify their > own selfishness and their lack of willingness to inconvenience > themselves the tiniest bit). > > I support terrorism through oil much less than most people, but I still > do somewhat. I use plastics, for one thing. Hell, even my train pass > is made of plastic. And you have bought into the lie. Oil and petroleum products are consumer goods. I have never purchased them from terrorists. No American has. Every one i know purchased gas from an American oil company and plastic products from an American store. > > But the point is, most people in SUVs are using more oil than the *need* > to in order to get through their workdays, etc. It is a valid message. > SUVs use a lot of fuel and aren't subject to "gas guzzler" tax. > it's only a valid message if a) all SUV are "gas guzzlers" and no other cars on the road are and b) someone else gets to decide for you how much gas you "need." Being a free individual, not needing to justify my consumption to you or anyone else, I "need" however much gas I use. You can believe the lie if you wish, and alter your purchasing habits accordingly, but dont you dare tell me what I "need." D���sir���e - From each by his need, to each by his ability

2003-01-12 08:48:56+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (D�sir�e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com>)


In article <3E20A301.1090801@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > D���sir���e Davis wrote: > > In article <3E1E4FD2.3050901@baerana.com>, eeyore48@baerana.com says... > > > > > >>I'm sure she uses a lot. The thing is, they have the money to fund > >>these commercials and stuff. Rich people are usually selfish. Sorry to > >>stereotype, but that's how I feel about it. They give money to > >>charities for selfish reasons, but it doesn't mean their money doesn't > >>do good. They want people to stop polluting so *they* have clean air, > >>but they don't stop polluting themselves (why, that would make their > >>lives less comfortable!) Still, the message is valid. Even a broken > >>clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital and is stuck on 18:69 > >>or something :) ) > > > > > > The message is not valid. Pointing at SUVs and ignoring every other > > driver on the road is logically wrong. It's incorrect. It's a fallacy. > > An untruth. Vehicles use gas. Slanderously labeling a portion of > > vehicle owners as supporters of terrorism is not a good message at all. > > Whatever pount she had has been irrevocably damaged. > > Well, although the drug commercials keep pointing out, it's not OK to > support terrorism "a little", I'm happy in the knowledge that I support > terrorism much less than SUV owners. Support requires willful action. buying gas is a willful action with the expressed goal of buying gas. That gas may or may not be purchased from an arab nation but regardless, the car owner has no direct or indirect dealing with terrorists; the oil company does. > > If you want to use the minimum amount of oil you can to stay alive, keep > working, and have a reasonable standard of living, you don't drive an > SUV unless you have too. And the lie of the argument rears it's ugly head again. either *all* car owners who buy gas, or none, are supporting terrorism. You don't get to slice up the pie based on the type of car. Perhaps everyone should have a gas quota. If you have an SUV but only drive it occasionally, you'll be fine. If you have a sports car and like to take aimless treks up and down the coast, you might have a problem. The commercials focus on an easy target, but don't really address the real problem. Typical mushy headed thinking that any logic 101 student can easily see through. > > As I pointed out in another post, I don't drive, don't own a car, and > take public transportation exclusively (and have for years, in many > different cities, so I know most of the horror stories about how bad > public transportation is are just excuses people use to justify their > own selfishness and their lack of willingness to inconvenience > themselves the tiniest bit). > > I support terrorism through oil much less than most people, but I still > do somewhat. I use plastics, for one thing. Hell, even my train pass > is made of plastic. And you have bought into the lie. Oil and petroleum products are consumer goods. I have never purchased them from terrorists. No American has. Every one i know purchased gas from an American oil company and plastic products from an American store. > > But the point is, most people in SUVs are using more oil than the *need* > to in order to get through their workdays, etc. It is a valid message. > SUVs use a lot of fuel and aren't subject to "gas guzzler" tax. > it's only a valid message if a) all SUV are "gas guzzlers" and no other cars on the road are and b) someone else gets to decide for you how much gas you "need." Being a free individual, not needing to justify my consumption to you or anyone else, I "need" however much gas I use. You can believe the lie if you wish, and alter your purchasing habits accordingly, but dont you dare tell me what I "need." D���sir���e - From each by his need, to each by his ability

2003-01-12 09:46:08-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <xjbU9.7181$qU5.5541876@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public > transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban > home to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown > and "segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for > downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the > cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks > to a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see > the sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban > centers would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and > parking of cars. All that is great until it rains.

2003-01-12 09:46:08-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <xjbU9.7181$qU5.5541876@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public > transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban > home to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown > and "segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for > downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the > cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks > to a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see > the sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban > centers would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and > parking of cars. All that is great until it rains.

2003-01-12 09:47:54-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E213E7E.6000501@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > David Marc Nieporent wrote: > > In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > > > >>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. > >> > > > >>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and > >>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got > >>to move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. > >>My bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, > >>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or > >>actual 'utility' needs. > > > > > > I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you > > don't "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? > > Why are people so offended by the word "need"? Not offended by the word. It's the attitude that you are deciding for me what I do and do not need.

2003-01-12 09:47:54-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3E213E7E.6000501@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > David Marc Nieporent wrote: > > In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > > > >>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. > >> > > > >>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and > >>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got > >>to move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. > >>My bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, > >>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or > >>actual 'utility' needs. > > > > > > I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you > > don't "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? > > Why are people so offended by the word "need"? Not offended by the word. It's the attitude that you are deciding for me what I do and do not need.

2003-01-12 09:48:27-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <h2912v05kc5gnp9mvni1okcotjkqovsrlp@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's > >not in the job description. > Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected > officiall is to get reelelcted. As I said, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's not in the job description.

2003-01-12 09:48:27-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <h2912v05kc5gnp9mvni1okcotjkqovsrlp@4ax.com>, Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's > >not in the job description. > Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected > officiall is to get reelelcted. As I said, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's not in the job description.

2003-01-12 09:49:23+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:23:03 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >But what if the bus driver says "No"? > pretend you are about to vomit? Stimpson

2003-01-12 09:49:23+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:23:03 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >But what if the bus driver says "No"? > pretend you are about to vomit? Stimpson

2003-01-12 09:54:10-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <8a712vc5j1lbl0o4v5g5qr49klorvgjqsp@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock > ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> >> > > >> >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear > >> >> > who > >> >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my > >> >> > lifestyle > >> >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> >> > garage. > >> >> > > >> >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> >> > School > >> >> > of Social Hypocrisy. > >> >> > >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, > >> >> and > >> >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking > >> >> pot". > >> >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and > >> >> take > >> >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should > >> >> do - at > >> >> least those who live in cities. > >> >> > >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >> >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and > >> >> less > >> >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message > >> >> is > >> >> valid. > >> > > >> >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were > >> >producing > >> >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >> >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* > >> >for > >> >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > > >> >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a > >> >Mini-Cooper, > >> >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > >> > > >> >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who > >> >drive > >> >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy > >> >it > >> >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >> >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, > >> >he'd > >> >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >> >like everyone else. > >> > > >> >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV > >> >driver > >> >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >> >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point > >> >on his talk show, guess what he did? > >> > > >> >"I gotta go to commercial." > >> > >> Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? > > > >Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't > >just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an > >"environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > Did I say natural gas? No I said gasoline or crude oil both of which > are used by SUV's and neither of which are used by houses. And I'm talking about Maher's stance on environmentalism in general, not just his position on SUVs. > >> For all > >> you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind > >> power. > > > >Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I > >made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his > >block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try > >again. > And those utilities could come from solar, wind, geothermal, or > hydropower. You don't know, I don't know. The fact that he blatantly dodged the issue by instantly going to commercial when it was brought up on his show makes me think it's not wind, geothermal, or hydropower. > >> People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space > >> taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. > > > >Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be > >doing with my own personal property. > > Actually it is, I vote green. As I said, it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own personal property. The fact that you vote green indicates that it never will be. > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > all. Yes, and I club baby seals on weekends too.

2003-01-12 09:54:10-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <8a712vc5j1lbl0o4v5g5qr49klorvgjqsp@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock > ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> BTR1701 wrote: > >> > > >> >> > Well, I guess I'm a terrorist since I drive a 4Runner. > >> >> > > >> >> > I see that one of the main financers of Ariana Huffington's "SUV > >> >> > Drivers Support Terrorism" ads is Norman Lear. > >> >> > > >> >> > Nothing like being preached to by a limousine liberal like Lear > >> >> > who > >> >> > tells me I'm the next best thing to al Qaeda because of my > >> >> > lifestyle > >> >> > while he goes home to his 10-acre Malibu estate with its 21-car > >> >> > garage. > >> >> > > >> >> > He must have graduated magna cum laude from the Barbra Streisand > >> >> > School > >> >> > of Social Hypocrisy. > >> >> > >> >> That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, > >> >> and > >> >> every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> >> terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking > >> >> pot". > >> >> I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and > >> >> take > >> >> ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should > >> >> do - at > >> >> least those who live in cities. > >> >> > >> >> I really expected SUV sales would go down after the September 11 > >> >> attacks, and really expected a push for more fuel-effecency and > >> >> less > >> >> dependency on foreign oil, but alas, no. We just bought flags... > >> >> > >> >> Anyway, so what if Ariana and Norman are hypocrites. Their message > >> >> is > >> >> valid. > >> > > >> >Not if it comes from them, it's not. If someone like you were > >> >producing > >> >these ads, I might give it more consideration. But when > >> >multi-millionaires who live in mansions and estates criticize *me* > >> >for > >> >my energy usage, all I can do is laugh derisively. > >> > > >> >When Normal Lear sells off 20 of his cars and only drives a > >> >Mini-Cooper, > >> >then I'll listen to him. I'm not holding my breath, though. > >> > > >> >Take Bill Maher, for example. He rants and raves about people who > >> >drive > >> >SUVs but his home in Hollywood Hills is massive. The amount of energy > >> >it > >> >takes to heat and cool and power that home for one day rivals what my > >> >home uses in a month. If he did it using solar power or some such, > >> >he'd > >> >get a pass but I know for a fact he's plugged into the utilities just > >> >like everyone else. > >> > > >> >So maybe he saves some oil driving his Prius compared to an SUV > >> >driver > >> >but it's more than a wash when the rest of his opulent lifestyle is > >> >taken into consideration and the one time he was called on this point > >> >on his talk show, guess what he did? > >> > > >> >"I gotta go to commercial." > >> > >> Since houses don't use Gasoline or crude oil what's the point? > > > >Here's a hint: houses use fossil fuels as well. Maher's position isn't > >just against SUVs. He rants at anyone who doesn't live an > >"environmentally friendly" lifestyle. > Did I say natural gas? No I said gasoline or crude oil both of which > are used by SUV's and neither of which are used by houses. And I'm talking about Maher's stance on environmentalism in general, not just his position on SUVs. > >> For all > >> you know the energy that powers his house is from water wheels or wind > >> power. > > > >Actually, I've seen his house. When I was told it was Maher's home, I > >made a point of noting the same utility hookups as everyone else on his > >block, since he makes such a big deal of everyone else's lifestyle. Try > >again. > And those utilities could come from solar, wind, geothermal, or > hydropower. You don't know, I don't know. The fact that he blatantly dodged the issue by instantly going to commercial when it was brought up on his show makes me think it's not wind, geothermal, or hydropower. > >> People should not be driving such huge, gas guzzling, space > >> taking vehicles unless they are carpooling all the damn time. > > > >Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be > >doing with my own personal property. > > Actually it is, I vote green. As I said, it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own personal property. The fact that you vote green indicates that it never will be. > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > all. Yes, and I club baby seals on weekends too.

2003-01-12 09:57:25+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:r6l12vsq1adhtca1oibsg7k436q18s6h7s@4ax.com... > On "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > appreciate the history lesson, and I do remember seeing Amigas in > >local puter store many moons ago, and having Computer Joe tout its many > >techie marvels. IIRC, I bought an IBM clone cause I needed specific > >software not available for Amiga. However, I was attemting a juxtaposition > >of Linux, a viable alternative to MS for a lot of people, to Amiga, which > >however unfortunately, isn't. > Didn't the Amiga run IBM software? > > BTW there are still active Amiga users around. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Yeah, I heard yet-another company bought the rights to the Amiga and was actually releasing new stuff for it. It's ... too painful to go back. You can only defend the superior choice--that almost no one wants--for so long. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 09:57:25+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:r6l12vsq1adhtca1oibsg7k436q18s6h7s@4ax.com... > On "someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > appreciate the history lesson, and I do remember seeing Amigas in > >local puter store many moons ago, and having Computer Joe tout its many > >techie marvels. IIRC, I bought an IBM clone cause I needed specific > >software not available for Amiga. However, I was attemting a juxtaposition > >of Linux, a viable alternative to MS for a lot of people, to Amiga, which > >however unfortunately, isn't. > Didn't the Amiga run IBM software? > > BTW there are still active Amiga users around. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Yeah, I heard yet-another company bought the rights to the Amiga and was actually releasing new stuff for it. It's ... too painful to go back. You can only defend the superior choice--that almost no one wants--for so long. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:20:13+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


<sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... > Segway? The human transporter invented by noted inventor Dean Kamen. It's an auto-balancing two-wheeled vehicled. Unlike scooters, skateboards, skates or bikes, it's auto-balancing, making it safer than walking. It looks a lot like a manual "push" lawn mower in having two wheels, but instead of in a row like a bike, they are side-by-side and you step on a platform between the two wheels and weighs about 75 pounds (about 32 kilograms). The vehicle has computer controlled gyros that balances itself akin to the way you would balance a broom resting on the palm of your hand. It's electric, recharged after several hours in household outlet and has a range of 17 miles and a maximum speed for consumer versions is 12.5 mph and 17mph for industrial versions--deliberately so it can be approved for use on sidewalks. It's small enough to fit thru doors, even if one has to get off it and slide it thru sideways, onto trains, buses and into malls and maybe even many escalators and elevators. Oh yeah, it's quiet. It makes no more noise than a rubber wheel rolling on the floor. The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban home to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown and "segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks to a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see the sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban centers would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and parking of cars. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:20:13+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


<sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... > Segway? The human transporter invented by noted inventor Dean Kamen. It's an auto-balancing two-wheeled vehicled. Unlike scooters, skateboards, skates or bikes, it's auto-balancing, making it safer than walking. It looks a lot like a manual "push" lawn mower in having two wheels, but instead of in a row like a bike, they are side-by-side and you step on a platform between the two wheels and weighs about 75 pounds (about 32 kilograms). The vehicle has computer controlled gyros that balances itself akin to the way you would balance a broom resting on the palm of your hand. It's electric, recharged after several hours in household outlet and has a range of 17 miles and a maximum speed for consumer versions is 12.5 mph and 17mph for industrial versions--deliberately so it can be approved for use on sidewalks. It's small enough to fit thru doors, even if one has to get off it and slide it thru sideways, onto trains, buses and into malls and maybe even many escalators and elevators. Oh yeah, it's quiet. It makes no more noise than a rubber wheel rolling on the floor. The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban home to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown and "segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks to a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see the sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban centers would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and parking of cars. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:21:21+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cbl12v8r8emmppfkr864ele2meq1p7n17f@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Where's my flying car? > It just went flying down the road at 120 mph in a 30 mph > zone........ > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- No, that's Harry Potter's car--or at least his best friend, or at least his best friend's dad. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:21:21+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:cbl12v8r8emmppfkr864ele2meq1p7n17f@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >Where's my flying car? > It just went flying down the road at 120 mph in a 30 mph > zone........ > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- No, that's Harry Potter's car--or at least his best friend, or at least his best friend's dad. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:23:03+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:vhj12vggqrp0qip1d7e9cmp3urlk9m7ivm@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > >where they refused to open the door. > > > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus > though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. > > Stimpson > But what if the bus driver says "No"? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:23:03+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:vhj12vggqrp0qip1d7e9cmp3urlk9m7ivm@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > >where they refused to open the door. > > > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus > though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. > > Stimpson > But what if the bus driver says "No"? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:24:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:iaj12voan2hv5rcemip5aaodq040n03p9t@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:55:46 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. > >Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? > >Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? > > > I have been stuck for about 20 minutes on the subway. The stupid > little "beep beep beep... We are experiencing technical problems..." > announcement going off every goddamn 20 seconds. We know already! > We're all the exact same people who were here 20 seconds ago! We still > remember, and you can shut the damn message off now!! That is what I > said to myself, I did! > > Stimpson Kinda like being on hold. "We're sorry, but your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line and someone will be with you shortly." -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:24:32+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:iaj12voan2hv5rcemip5aaodq040n03p9t@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 09:55:46 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >And mass transit can also be a prison in the same respect. > >Ever been on a subway car stuck in the tunnel for hours? > >Ever been on a bus stuck in a tunnel for hours? > > > I have been stuck for about 20 minutes on the subway. The stupid > little "beep beep beep... We are experiencing technical problems..." > announcement going off every goddamn 20 seconds. We know already! > We're all the exact same people who were here 20 seconds ago! We still > remember, and you can shut the damn message off now!! That is what I > said to myself, I did! > > Stimpson Kinda like being on hold. "We're sorry, but your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line and someone will be with you shortly." -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:28:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:q3k12vo6hstc0vpbq97d8rt37tfq9d3oo2@4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:15:15 GMT, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride > >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an > >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to > >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a > >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > > > You're from Chicago. How many times have you been stranded on the > Kennedy or the Eisenhower expressways, enduring a gruelling 5 mile, 45 > minute ride, watching the L trains zoom by in the medians? The side by > side comparison is pretty eye opening sometimes. It all just depends > were you are going and what you are doing, though, I guess. > > Stimpson > Yeah, CTA (Chicago's public transportation authority) is great--in the city. But go out to the surburbs on RTA (Illinois' regional version of the CTA) or Metra (Metropolitan Rail) and the waits can get horrendous the further out from the city you get. And heaven forbid you have a job that's NOT 8-5 M-F. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:28:46+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:q3k12vo6hstc0vpbq97d8rt37tfq9d3oo2@4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:15:15 GMT, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride > >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an > >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to > >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a > >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > > > You're from Chicago. How many times have you been stranded on the > Kennedy or the Eisenhower expressways, enduring a gruelling 5 mile, 45 > minute ride, watching the L trains zoom by in the medians? The side by > side comparison is pretty eye opening sometimes. It all just depends > were you are going and what you are doing, though, I guess. > > Stimpson > Yeah, CTA (Chicago's public transportation authority) is great--in the city. But go out to the surburbs on RTA (Illinois' regional version of the CTA) or Metra (Metropolitan Rail) and the waits can get horrendous the further out from the city you get. And heaven forbid you have a job that's NOT 8-5 M-F. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:34:18+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k9n12vs8qrgl7clu2kq37e4fkuq7rvkmmk@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride > >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an > >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to > >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a > >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > > > >Yeah, it's usually better the closer to urban areas and the greater the > >population / potential customers, and especially if you are riding during > >the standard 7-9am / 5-7pm time slots Monday thru Friday. > To get to where I work it requires 3 buses, often there is a > wait of at least a half hour between trips, they are never > timed such that one bus leaves just after the first one > arrives. Invariably the first one arrives just after the > one I need to get on leaves. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- That's always fun. I heard a few years ago--natch, AFTER I started driving, after 2 decades of using public transportation--CTA was revamping downtown and latenight routes and routes that link up with the L and Metra so that buses WAIT for 5-10 minutes, especially late at night downtown where several buses link up. I was so royally ticked off this kind of thinking occurred AFTER I stopped using it. >=^> -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:34:18+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:k9n12vs8qrgl7clu2kq37e4fkuq7rvkmmk@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >The catch in public transportation are TRANSFERS. A 5-mile, ten-minute ride > >down an expressway can indeed turn into several hours if you have to wait an > >hour for the bus or train from the time you get off work (kinda hard to > >catch the 5pm bus if you're getting off work at 5pm) and after riding for a > >few miles, have to connect with another bus or train. > > > >Yeah, it's usually better the closer to urban areas and the greater the > >population / potential customers, and especially if you are riding during > >the standard 7-9am / 5-7pm time slots Monday thru Friday. > To get to where I work it requires 3 buses, often there is a > wait of at least a half hour between trips, they are never > timed such that one bus leaves just after the first one > arrives. Invariably the first one arrives just after the > one I need to get on leaves. > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- That's always fun. I heard a few years ago--natch, AFTER I started driving, after 2 decades of using public transportation--CTA was revamping downtown and latenight routes and routes that link up with the L and Metra so that buses WAIT for 5-10 minutes, especially late at night downtown where several buses link up. I was so royally ticked off this kind of thinking occurred AFTER I stopped using it. >=^> -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:36:48+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:pan.2003.01.12.01.29.11.765370@bellsouth.net... > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:07:05 +0000, Silverlock wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > > wrote: > > > >>In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock > >><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >>> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> ><snip> > >>Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be > >>doing with my own personal property. > > > > Actually it is, I vote green. > > > hey BTR170x- don't know about you, but I got a warm fuzzy feeling after reading > that... > > > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > > all. > > Clearly the only choice is PURPLE! -- Ken from Chicago ("green" as if!)

2003-01-12 10:36:48+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"someone" <yustabe@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:pan.2003.01.12.01.29.11.765370@bellsouth.net... > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:07:05 +0000, Silverlock wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:39:58 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > > wrote: > > > >>In article <i2iv1vo6rosojt32psehepdlm0nap85csh@4ax.com>, Silverlock > >><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >>> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 17:32:28 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> >In article <3E1DFFAC.1090109@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 > >>> ><eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> BTR1701 wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> ><snip> > >>Fortunately it's not for you to decide what I should and shouldn't be > >>doing with my own personal property. > > > > Actually it is, I vote green. > > > hey BTR170x- don't know about you, but I got a warm fuzzy feeling after reading > that... > > > It does show how much you care about the environment though, ie not at > > all. > > Clearly the only choice is PURPLE! -- Ken from Chicago ("green" as if!)

2003-01-12 10:38:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message news:92s02vcb3sdv7sngddkss0pi75cdheompc@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's > >>not in the job description. > >Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected > >officiall is to get reelelcted. > > > > Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in > office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal > agenda and not part of their job. > I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't > make it right. > > Botch > Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is best for the people? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:38:24+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message news:92s02vcb3sdv7sngddkss0pi75cdheompc@4ax.com... > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's > >>not in the job description. > >Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected > >officiall is to get reelelcted. > > > > Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in > office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal > agenda and not part of their job. > I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't > make it right. > > Botch > Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is best for the people? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:43:59+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 04:47:21 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >Botch wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>>>not in the job description. >>> >>>Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >>>officiall is to get reelelcted. >>> >> >> >> Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >> office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >> agenda and not part of their job. >> I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >> make it right. > >Most things most people do aren't "right" but that doesn't mean that's >not what they do. Correct but getting re-elected is not JOB 1 for them, representing us is. Botch

2003-01-12 10:43:59+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 04:47:21 -0500, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >Botch wrote: >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>>>not in the job description. >>> >>>Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >>>officiall is to get reelelcted. >>> >> >> >> Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >> office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >> agenda and not part of their job. >> I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >> make it right. > >Most things most people do aren't "right" but that doesn't mean that's >not what they do. Correct but getting re-elected is not JOB 1 for them, representing us is. Botch

2003-01-12 11:01:16+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:20:13 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > ><sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message >news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... >> Segway? > >The human transporter invented by noted inventor Dean Kamen. It's an >auto-balancing two-wheeled vehicled. Unlike scooters, skateboards, skates or >bikes, it's auto-balancing, making it safer than walking. It looks a lot >like a manual "push" lawn mower in having two wheels, but instead of in a >row like a bike, they are side-by-side and you step on a platform between >the two wheels and weighs about 75 pounds (about 32 kilograms). The vehicle >has computer controlled gyros that balances itself akin to the way you would >balance a broom resting on the palm of your hand. > >It's electric, recharged after several hours in household outlet and has a >range of 17 miles and a maximum speed for consumer versions is 12.5 mph and >17mph for industrial versions--deliberately so it can be approved for use on >sidewalks. It's small enough to fit thru doors, even if one has to get off >it and slide it thru sideways, onto trains, buses and into malls and maybe >even many escalators and elevators. Oh yeah, it's quiet. It makes no more >noise than a rubber wheel rolling on the floor. > >The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public >transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban home >to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown and >"segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for >downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the >cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks to >a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see the >sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban centers >would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and >parking of cars. > >-- Ken from Chicago > The problem is that to a number of people 75 pounds is like a ton, making it ungainly and hard to handle unless it's in use. Also it's not equipped for bad weather or carrying anything more than can be fit into some small saddle type bags it can be equipped with. One other problem, if you live in a major city, imagine all the people crowding the sidewalks, put even half those people on the sidewalk driving those and it would be more crowded or you could put them driving in the street competing with cars, which is like asking for a disaster. I like the things, they look like fun, I'd like to own one, but it's too expensive and IMHO not a practical solution unless all cars were eliminated to make room on the streets for them. Botch

2003-01-12 11:01:16+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:20:13 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > ><sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message >news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... >> Segway? > >The human transporter invented by noted inventor Dean Kamen. It's an >auto-balancing two-wheeled vehicled. Unlike scooters, skateboards, skates or >bikes, it's auto-balancing, making it safer than walking. It looks a lot >like a manual "push" lawn mower in having two wheels, but instead of in a >row like a bike, they are side-by-side and you step on a platform between >the two wheels and weighs about 75 pounds (about 32 kilograms). The vehicle >has computer controlled gyros that balances itself akin to the way you would >balance a broom resting on the palm of your hand. > >It's electric, recharged after several hours in household outlet and has a >range of 17 miles and a maximum speed for consumer versions is 12.5 mph and >17mph for industrial versions--deliberately so it can be approved for use on >sidewalks. It's small enough to fit thru doors, even if one has to get off >it and slide it thru sideways, onto trains, buses and into malls and maybe >even many escalators and elevators. Oh yeah, it's quiet. It makes no more >noise than a rubber wheel rolling on the floor. > >The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public >transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban home >to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown and >"segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for >downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the >cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks to >a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see the >sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban centers >would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and >parking of cars. > >-- Ken from Chicago > The problem is that to a number of people 75 pounds is like a ton, making it ungainly and hard to handle unless it's in use. Also it's not equipped for bad weather or carrying anything more than can be fit into some small saddle type bags it can be equipped with. One other problem, if you live in a major city, imagine all the people crowding the sidewalks, put even half those people on the sidewalk driving those and it would be more crowded or you could put them driving in the street competing with cars, which is like asking for a disaster. I like the things, they look like fun, I'd like to own one, but it's too expensive and IMHO not a practical solution unless all cars were eliminated to make room on the streets for them. Botch

2003-01-12 11:10:38-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Yeah, I heard yet-another company bought the rights to the Amiga and was >actually releasing new stuff for it. It's ... too painful to go back. You >can only defend the superior choice--that almost no one wants--for so long. But as I keep saying newer is not always better. I know some Amiga users who still use them to this day. Ultimately it is their decision as to whether it is obsolete or not. Since they are still using it is not obsolete. Take a look at what some of these people are doing on the older computer systems. You would be absolutely amazed at how these older computers are still being used and how much has been created for them. When it comes to computers like the Amiga the only problem is the company that made it didn't know how to market it. It was a good computer that was ahead of it's time.....but TPTB didn't know how to capitalize on it. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:10:38-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Yeah, I heard yet-another company bought the rights to the Amiga and was >actually releasing new stuff for it. It's ... too painful to go back. You >can only defend the superior choice--that almost no one wants--for so long. But as I keep saying newer is not always better. I know some Amiga users who still use them to this day. Ultimately it is their decision as to whether it is obsolete or not. Since they are still using it is not obsolete. Take a look at what some of these people are doing on the older computer systems. You would be absolutely amazed at how these older computers are still being used and how much has been created for them. When it comes to computers like the Amiga the only problem is the company that made it didn't know how to market it. It was a good computer that was ahead of it's time.....but TPTB didn't know how to capitalize on it. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:12:58-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


><sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message >news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... >> Segway? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00007EPJ6/ref=segway_tn_left/104-5550886-6561549 Only $4950.000 ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:12:58-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


><sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message >news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... >> Segway? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00007EPJ6/ref=segway_tn_left/104-5550886-6561549 Only $4950.000 ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:17:01+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:38:24 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message >news:92s02vcb3sdv7sngddkss0pi75cdheompc@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >> >>not in the job description. >> >Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >> >officiall is to get reelelcted. >> > >> >> Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >> office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >> agenda and not part of their job. >> I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >> make it right. >> >> Botch >> > >Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the >people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is >best for the people? > >-- Ken from Chicago > Good question, you can only vote for someone who thinks similar to the way you do, and agrees with you on most issues. You're never going to agree 100% with any candidate, so where that level of comfort is would be subjective. So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and their judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable is cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of Illinois did yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a controversial decision. Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt he would have made it if he had been planning to remain in politics. Botch

2003-01-12 11:17:01+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:38:24 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message >news:92s02vcb3sdv7sngddkss0pi75cdheompc@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> > >> >>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >> >>not in the job description. >> >Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >> >officiall is to get reelelcted. >> > >> >> Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >> office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >> agenda and not part of their job. >> I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >> make it right. >> >> Botch >> > >Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the >people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is >best for the people? > >-- Ken from Chicago > Good question, you can only vote for someone who thinks similar to the way you do, and agrees with you on most issues. You're never going to agree 100% with any candidate, so where that level of comfort is would be subjective. So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and their judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable is cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of Illinois did yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a controversial decision. Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt he would have made it if he had been planning to remain in politics. Botch

2003-01-12 11:20:40-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >No, they could drive 120 mph and swerve around or simply drive right over >it, knowing not to try and turn on the patch, of to adjust speed and turn >ratios to account for the slickness of ice given the temperature, humidity >precipitation, traffic conditions--especially if networked to other vehicles >who've already driven over the patch. And they will swerve around it and right into a tree or another car. Many have tried that around here and wound up wrapped around a tree. Ultimately there is only one solution to ice driving.....slow down before you hit the ice. I'm not convinced the computer sensors would not freeze up before the ice patch. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:20:40-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >No, they could drive 120 mph and swerve around or simply drive right over >it, knowing not to try and turn on the patch, of to adjust speed and turn >ratios to account for the slickness of ice given the temperature, humidity >precipitation, traffic conditions--especially if networked to other vehicles >who've already driven over the patch. And they will swerve around it and right into a tree or another car. Many have tried that around here and wound up wrapped around a tree. Ultimately there is only one solution to ice driving.....slow down before you hit the ice. I'm not convinced the computer sensors would not freeze up before the ice patch. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:21:05+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-26455B.03574612012003@news-east.giganews.com... > In article <gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com>, > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >>Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > >>would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, > >>puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > >After living through many hard winters up here in the > >northland I doubt it. > > Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about > anything. > > --------------------------------------------- > David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu Hey just because it's computer controlled does NOT mean it has to have a voice--or a self-motivated voice. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 11:21:05+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"David Marc Nieporent" <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message news:nieporen-26455B.03574612012003@news-east.giganews.com... > In article <gej02vgj5406pikuqn1hno2dsndp35ebce@4ax.com>, > Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >>Computer sensors, video, radar, nightvision, sonar and INFRARED sensors > >>would be able to sense icy patchers BETTER than humans--as well as potholes, > >>puddles, obstacles, even in rain, snow, sleet or fog. > > >After living through many hard winters up here in the > >northland I doubt it. > > Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about > anything. > > --------------------------------------------- > David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu Hey just because it's computer controlled does NOT mean it has to have a voice--or a self-motivated voice. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 11:22:59+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:iqj12vo29h2o08pq5licme2jukfhfi8ajv@4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > > > > >Sure she could, in a station wagon. > > Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around > mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little > electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn > business! > > Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to > impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? > > Stimpson To balance out social conservatives who try to impose their "morally correct" views on everyone. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 11:22:59+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message news:iqj12vo29h2o08pq5licme2jukfhfi8ajv@4ax.com... > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > > > > >Sure she could, in a station wagon. > > Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around > mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little > electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn > business! > > Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to > impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? > > Stimpson To balance out social conservatives who try to impose their "morally correct" views on everyone. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 11:23:21-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about >anything. Knight Rider was a science fiction show. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:23:21-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about >anything. Knight Rider was a science fiction show. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:25:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about >anything. The voice of the car....they should have cast him as a doctor on St. Elsewhere....... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:25:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about >anything. The voice of the car....they should have cast him as a doctor on St. Elsewhere....... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:27:11-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >I'm not talking about current cars. I'm talking about cars we SHOULD >frelling have 3 years into the 21st century. I don't think comsumers would accept them yet. IMHO people are a numbers years away from trusting computers that much. The technology is here, the comsumer stomach for it is not. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:27:11-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >I'm not talking about current cars. I'm talking about cars we SHOULD >frelling have 3 years into the 21st century. I don't think comsumers would accept them yet. IMHO people are a numbers years away from trusting computers that much. The technology is here, the comsumer stomach for it is not. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:30:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >If you have a tunnel full of stuck cars you have a wee bit of a towing >problem. Not any more than the problem we had during the blizzard of 78 when the local highways were completely blocked by cars snowed in........ It took them many days to clear that......... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:30:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >If you have a tunnel full of stuck cars you have a wee bit of a towing >problem. Not any more than the problem we had during the blizzard of 78 when the local highways were completely blocked by cars snowed in........ It took them many days to clear that......... ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:33:53-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >I have been stuck for about 20 minutes on the subway. I had a number of occasions where I was stuck in the subway for tunnel for many hours. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:33:53-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >I have been stuck for about 20 minutes on the subway. I had a number of occasions where I was stuck in the subway for tunnel for many hours. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:41:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >You're from Chicago. How many times have you been stranded on the >Kennedy or the Eisenhower expressways, enduring a gruelling 5 mile, 45 >minute ride, watching the L trains zoom by in the medians? The side by >side comparison is pretty eye opening sometimes. It all just depends >were you are going and what you are doing, though, I guess. Or you are in Boston: You are on the Red Line at JFK station your train is sitting there while they clear a deraliment ahead. You sit there for many hours while you see cars flying by on the expressway. The side by side comparison is pretty eye opening some times. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:41:03-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: >You're from Chicago. How many times have you been stranded on the >Kennedy or the Eisenhower expressways, enduring a gruelling 5 mile, 45 >minute ride, watching the L trains zoom by in the medians? The side by >side comparison is pretty eye opening sometimes. It all just depends >were you are going and what you are doing, though, I guess. Or you are in Boston: You are on the Red Line at JFK station your train is sitting there while they clear a deraliment ahead. You sit there for many hours while you see cars flying by on the expressway. The side by side comparison is pretty eye opening some times. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:46:37-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Botch <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote: >Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >agenda and not part of their job. >I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >make it right. There first job should be to serve the people. In reality they worry first about getting reelected. I can't name a single candidate whose first concern was not to get reelected. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:46:37-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On Botch <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote: >Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >agenda and not part of their job. >I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >make it right. There first job should be to serve the people. In reality they worry first about getting reelected. I can't name a single candidate whose first concern was not to get reelected. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:48:28-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the >people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is >best for the people? Around here we have elected officials who do what they want even when there is a referendum that passes 80% to 20% to the contrary. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:48:28-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the >people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is >best for the people? Around here we have elected officials who do what they want even when there is a referendum that passes 80% to 20% to the contrary. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:51:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >60 people on 1 bus vs 15 cars or more likely 60 cars. Of course around here we have 40 people on a bus but the bus is dumping enough pollution for 100 people. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 11:51:02-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com>)


On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >60 people on 1 bus vs 15 cars or more likely 60 cars. Of course around here we have 40 people on a bus but the bus is dumping enough pollution for 100 people. ====================================================== To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

2003-01-12 12:05:41-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com>)


Aethelrede wrote: > Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... > > > > > >---------- > >In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek > ><vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've > been > >> wanting - ... > > > I have an 89 Corolla with almost 140,000 miles on it that still gets > around 32 mpg even though I rarely drive more than 30-40 miles a day and > only on local roads. I keep it because the engine and transmission are > still working well, and if the power is a little less than it was, the body > is rusting away and weighing less so things are sort of evening out. And > the radio still works. > Besides, I just had to buy a new battery, so I have to keep it over the > winter at least to get some return on the money. I've been driving a '94 Toyota pickup the last 9 years - need to haul stuff around, renovating my house all this time, and lucked out finding a nearly-new model at a good price. 150,000 miles on it, no mechanical trouble ever, and I get 32 mpg fully laden. Even if I get the Valiant I'm keeping the truck; too darn useful. VMacek

2003-01-12 12:05:41-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Vince Macek <vmacek@mindspring.com>)


Aethelrede wrote: > Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... > > > > > >---------- > >In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek > ><vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've > been > >> wanting - ... > > > I have an 89 Corolla with almost 140,000 miles on it that still gets > around 32 mpg even though I rarely drive more than 30-40 miles a day and > only on local roads. I keep it because the engine and transmission are > still working well, and if the power is a little less than it was, the body > is rusting away and weighing less so things are sort of evening out. And > the radio still works. > Besides, I just had to buy a new battery, so I have to keep it over the > winter at least to get some return on the money. I've been driving a '94 Toyota pickup the last 9 years - need to haul stuff around, renovating my house all this time, and lucked out finding a nearly-new model at a good price. 150,000 miles on it, no mechanical trouble ever, and I get 32 mpg fully laden. Even if I get the Valiant I'm keeping the truck; too darn useful. VMacek

2003-01-12 13:26:39-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Ken wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:sk532vgkru4n6dnjvvcauona24vebr5o1g@4ax.com... > >>On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >>wrote: >> >> >>>Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just >> > about > >>>anything. >> >>The voice of the car....they should have cast him as a >>doctor on St. Elsewhere....... >> >>====================================================== >>To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. >> >> >>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- >>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > > > Or Ben Savage's dad on a ABC TGIF sitcom. Or, actually, Ben Savage's teacher on a ABC TGIF sitcom...

2003-01-12 13:26:39-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Ken wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:sk532vgkru4n6dnjvvcauona24vebr5o1g@4ax.com... > >>On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >>wrote: >> >> >>>Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just >> > about > >>>anything. >> >>The voice of the car....they should have cast him as a >>doctor on St. Elsewhere....... >> >>====================================================== >>To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. >> >> >>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- >>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- > > > Or Ben Savage's dad on a ABC TGIF sitcom. Or, actually, Ben Savage's teacher on a ABC TGIF sitcom...

2003-01-12 13:29:59-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Botch wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:38:24 GMT, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >>"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message >>news:92s02vcb3sdv7sngddkss0pi75cdheompc@4ax.com... >> >>>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >>><Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>>>>not in the job description. >>>> >>>>Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >>>>officiall is to get reelelcted. >>>> >>> >>>Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >>>office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >>>agenda and not part of their job. >>>I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >>>make it right. >>> >>>Botch >>> >> >>Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the >>people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is >>best for the people? >> >>-- Ken from Chicago >> > > > Good question, you can only vote for someone who thinks similar to the > way you do, and agrees with you on most issues. You're never going to > agree 100% with any candidate, so where that level of comfort is would > be subjective. > So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and > their judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable > is cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of > Illinois did yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a > controversial decision. Yeah, that's usually the only time they do anything worthwhile > Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt > he would have made it if he had been planning to remain in politics.

2003-01-12 13:29:59-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com>)


Botch wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:38:24 GMT, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >>"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message >>news:92s02vcb3sdv7sngddkss0pi75cdheompc@4ax.com... >> >>>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 18:11:24 -0500, Willow Rosenberg >>><Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>No, that's not a function. That may be the practical reality but it's >>>>>not in the job description. >>>> >>>>Wake up and smell the coffee. Job 1 for any elected >>>>officiall is to get reelelcted. >>>> >>> >>>Wrong, their 1 and only job is to represent the people who put them in >>>office. Worrying about getting re-elected is their own personal >>>agenda and not part of their job. >>>I'm not saying they don't make it their prime worry, but that doesn't >>>make it right. >>> >>>Botch >>> >> >>Do they represent the people by doing what the people say? by what the >>people want? by what their own experience and conscience tells them what is >>best for the people? >> >>-- Ken from Chicago >> > > > Good question, you can only vote for someone who thinks similar to the > way you do, and agrees with you on most issues. You're never going to > agree 100% with any candidate, so where that level of comfort is would > be subjective. > So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and > their judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable > is cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of > Illinois did yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a > controversial decision. Yeah, that's usually the only time they do anything worthwhile > Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt > he would have made it if he had been planning to remain in politics.

2003-01-12 13:43:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <tUiU9.7259$qU5.5591838@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:8f532vgr43olod7b7175tliskhai18m0ue@4ax.com... > > On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> > > wrote: > > > > >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about > > >anything. > > Knight Rider was a science fiction show. > So were pagers in DR. NO. And the handheld communicators in Star Trek... look remarkably like today's cell phones.

2003-01-12 13:43:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <tUiU9.7259$qU5.5591838@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:8f532vgr43olod7b7175tliskhai18m0ue@4ax.com... > > On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> > > wrote: > > > > >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do just about > > >anything. > > Knight Rider was a science fiction show. > So were pagers in DR. NO. And the handheld communicators in Star Trek... look remarkably like today's cell phones.

2003-01-12 13:46:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <yzgU9.533804$GR5.288039@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > ---------- > In article <nieporen-B00DC6.04423912012003@news-east.giganews.com>, David > Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > >>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >>> It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving > >>> off-road. > > > >>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and > >>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got > >>to > >>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. > >>My > >>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, > >>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or > >>actual 'utility' needs. > > > > I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you > > don't "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? > > Do the things I don't actually *need* cause problems in a geopolitical > sense? Perhaps. You don't need that dishwasher or clothes washer or dryer. You could wash all your clothes and dishes by hand and dry the clothes on a line outside. Those machines use energy which burns fuel which could come from "terrorist" countries. How about those lights in your home? Again, burning energy... better shut off your power and use candles. Much less prone to financing terrorism. > Do Arab terrorists make money from me having and using a drafting > table to do my artwork on? Let me know if the things I have that I don't > *need* are directly funding terrorism with my usage. And if I do, will you immediately dump them? Somehow I think not.

2003-01-12 13:46:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <yzgU9.533804$GR5.288039@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>, "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > ---------- > In article <nieporen-B00DC6.04423912012003@news-east.giganews.com>, David > Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > > > In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, > > "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: > >>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >>> It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving > >>> off-road. > > > >>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and > >>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got > >>to > >>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. > >>My > >>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, > >>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or > >>actual 'utility' needs. > > > > I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you > > don't "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? > > Do the things I don't actually *need* cause problems in a geopolitical > sense? Perhaps. You don't need that dishwasher or clothes washer or dryer. You could wash all your clothes and dishes by hand and dry the clothes on a line outside. Those machines use energy which burns fuel which could come from "terrorist" countries. How about those lights in your home? Again, burning energy... better shut off your power and use candles. Much less prone to financing terrorism. > Do Arab terrorists make money from me having and using a drafting > table to do my artwork on? Let me know if the things I have that I don't > *need* are directly funding terrorism with my usage. And if I do, will you immediately dump them? Somehow I think not.

2003-01-12 13:48:45-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <J4hU9.7231$qU5.5573679@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-6CDB83.09460812012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <xjbU9.7181$qU5.5541876@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable > > > public transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your > > > suburban home to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it > downtown > > > and "segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg > for > > > downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the > > > cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few > > > blocks to a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around > > > to see the sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in > > > urban centers would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot > > > without costs and parking of cars. > > > > All that is great until it rains. > > The segway runs in rain and even snow. I never said it didn't. But *I* don't run great in the rain and snow. Zipping down the street while being drenched by rain or frozen by wind chill isn't usually on my agenda on a typical day.

2003-01-12 13:48:45-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <J4hU9.7231$qU5.5573679@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:BTR1702-6CDB83.09460812012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > > In article <xjbU9.7181$qU5.5541876@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable > > > public transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your > > > suburban home to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it > downtown > > > and "segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg > for > > > downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the > > > cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few > > > blocks to a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around > > > to see the sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in > > > urban centers would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot > > > without costs and parking of cars. > > > > All that is great until it rains. > > The segway runs in rain and even snow. I never said it didn't. But *I* don't run great in the rain and snow. Zipping down the street while being drenched by rain or frozen by wind chill isn't usually on my agenda on a typical day.

2003-01-12 13:49:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <bmbU9.7183$qU5.5542001@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:vhj12vggqrp0qip1d7e9cmp3urlk9m7ivm@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > > >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > > >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > > >where they refused to open the door. > > > > > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus > > though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. > > > > Stimpson > > > > But what if the bus driver says "No"? Ignore him.

2003-01-12 13:49:35-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <bmbU9.7183$qU5.5542001@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:vhj12vggqrp0qip1d7e9cmp3urlk9m7ivm@4ax.com... > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:09:34 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > > <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > > > >>Almost as bad as being stuck in a regular car in a tunnel for hours. > > >Not necessarily true. At least in your own car you can get > > >out if the need arises. I've been on buses and subways > > >where they refused to open the door. > > > > > The tracks are extremely high voltage. I don't know about the bus > > though, I think I'd just push the damn door open. > > > > Stimpson > > > > But what if the bus driver says "No"? Ignore him.

2003-01-12 13:50:51-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <67712vg7cvsac22ukopeub3un4p32r2ogt@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:42:29 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock > ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >> >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > >> >> I > >> >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >> >>ONLY > >> >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - > >> >>at > >> >>least those who live in cities. > >> >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > >> > > >> >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > >> >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > >> >doesn't break down which it does very often). > >> > > >> > >> You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > >> guzzling car. > > > >How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about > >Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of > >a person you don't even know. > > > >Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several > >times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily > >in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. > > Sure she could, in a station wagon. Not real great on gas mileage either.

2003-01-12 13:50:51-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <67712vg7cvsac22ukopeub3un4p32r2ogt@4ax.com>, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 01:42:29 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <euhv1vk4fb3rjfa8mp59b8fsqoa9jp5c0b@4ax.com>, Silverlock > ><croesus@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 19:27:13 -0500, Willow Rosenberg > >> <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >>That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > >> >>every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > >> >>terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > >> >> I > >> >>am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > >> >>ONLY > >> >>public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - > >> >>at > >> >>least those who live in cities. > >> >I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > >> > > >> >I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > >> >there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > >> >doesn't break down which it does very often). > >> > > >> > >> You could drive to work just as easily in 10 minutes in a less gas > >> guzzling car. > > > >How do you know? You just railed against me for making assumptions about > >Bill Maher's home. Now you're making assumptions about the lifestyle of > >a person you don't even know. > > > >Perhaps her job requires her to carry large boxes of material several > >times a week. In that case, she *couldn't* drive to work just as easily > >in 10 minutes in a Honda Civic as she could in a Suburban. > > Sure she could, in a station wagon. Not real great on gas mileage either.

2003-01-12 13:55:41-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <iqj12vo29h2o08pq5licme2jukfhfi8ajv@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >Sure she could, in a station wagon. > > Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around > mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little > electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn > business! > > Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to > impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? Amen! The latest example of this where I live is the new 55 MPH speed limit in Houston, dropped from 70 MPH. The enviro nutjobs have imposed this on 4 million people in the Houston metro area, despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that it will have any effect on air quality whatsoever. Even the enviros admit that they have no idea if it will work or not. To them it's just some interesting experiment. They have no compunction about inconveniencing the entire populace of the 4th largest city in the US merely to conduct some pie-eyed "experiment". Not to mention the cost to the state to change the thousands of traffic signs on all the highways in the Houston area. (News radio reported that it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million.)

2003-01-12 13:55:41-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <iqj12vo29h2o08pq5licme2jukfhfi8ajv@4ax.com>, Stimpson J. Cat <house@next.tuesday> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >Sure she could, in a station wagon. > > Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around > mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little > electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn > business! > > Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to > impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? Amen! The latest example of this where I live is the new 55 MPH speed limit in Houston, dropped from 70 MPH. The enviro nutjobs have imposed this on 4 million people in the Houston metro area, despite there being ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that it will have any effect on air quality whatsoever. Even the enviros admit that they have no idea if it will work or not. To them it's just some interesting experiment. They have no compunction about inconveniencing the entire populace of the 4th largest city in the US merely to conduct some pie-eyed "experiment". Not to mention the cost to the state to change the thousands of traffic signs on all the highways in the Houston area. (News radio reported that it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million.)

2003-01-12 13:56:29+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vmk12vogmitjr2k875ttdegl20skhhb7k0@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >That's why I would propose to HAVE backup computers. I would be the first to > >argue against pen-and-paper-driven cars. > I've worked for some companies that would have no backup > computers because they were lucky to have that one computer. > The owners were older individuals who if given a choice of > getting a backup computer or getting rid of the main > computer and going back to the typewriter and doing stuff > by hand would go with a the old fashioned method in a > heart beat. > > They didn't trust computers and at the > first sign of trouble would toss the computer. > It's one of the things that comes with the territory when > you have a boss that is getting up there in years. > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Well, then those kinda people probably wouldn't have a computer-driven car in the first place, and only after years of statistics of lowered casualty rates would they get one. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 13:56:29+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vmk12vogmitjr2k875ttdegl20skhhb7k0@4ax.com... > On "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > >That's why I would propose to HAVE backup computers. I would be the first to > >argue against pen-and-paper-driven cars. > I've worked for some companies that would have no backup > computers because they were lucky to have that one computer. > The owners were older individuals who if given a choice of > getting a backup computer or getting rid of the main > computer and going back to the typewriter and doing stuff > by hand would go with a the old fashioned method in a > heart beat. > > They didn't trust computers and at the > first sign of trouble would toss the computer. > It's one of the things that comes with the territory when > you have a boss that is getting up there in years. > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- Well, then those kinda people probably wouldn't have a computer-driven car in the first place, and only after years of statistics of lowered casualty rates would they get one. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 13:57:24-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3e20a0fa.145124527@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:54:20 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > > >Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > >garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > >more gas than my one SUV. > > Really? How do you figure that? When I leave my car in the garage > it doesn't use much gas at all. So how do his 21 cars in his garage > use more gas than your SUV? You're assuming he's the only one driving those cars.

2003-01-12 13:57:24-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3e20a0fa.145124527@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote: > On Thu, 09 Jan 2003 16:54:20 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> Celebrities don't travel in limos everywhere they go, you dumb hick. > > > >Did I say they do? However it's a fact that Norman Lear has a 21-car > >garage. Even if they are all Toyota Corrollas, that's a hell of a lot > >more gas than my one SUV. > > Really? How do you figure that? When I leave my car in the garage > it doesn't use much gas at all. So how do his 21 cars in his garage > use more gas than your SUV? You're assuming he's the only one driving those cars.

2003-01-12 14:00:20-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <MPG.188a3801bae487f29898c2@news.verizon.net>, D���sir���e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, > Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > > >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > > >I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > > >ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > > >least those who live in cities. > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > doesn't break down which it does very often). > > I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, > during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. > On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to > get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus > trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has > the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 > minutes later. > > Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works > rather well. you should try it I actually did once, just to see if it was true what people like you say about public transportation. My normal car commute in Houston was between 20 and 25 minutes. When I took the bus it took 67 minutes and I had to transfer buses two times, standing in the sweltering heat of a blazing Houston summer, sweting through my suit the whole time, waiting for my next bus to arrive. Needless to say, public transportation lost the contest.

2003-01-12 14:00:20-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <MPG.188a3801bae487f29898c2@news.verizon.net>, D���sir���e Davis <hbeachbabe@yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <in4s1vsqq4hset6i4n29m95oob9seg050g@4ax.com>, > Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com says... > > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > > > >That's pretty funny. Those drug commercials really piss me off, and > > >every time I see one, I think, "man, those people in SUVs support > > >terrorism way more, and way more directly, than people smoking pot". > > >I am actually not a hypocrite, though, because I don't drive and take > > >ONLY public transportation. Which is what 90% of americans should do - at > > >least those who live in cities. > > I'll take public transportation when it actually works. > > > > I can drive to work in 10 minutes. It takes 3 hours to get > > there by public transportation. (And that assumes it > > doesn't break down which it does very often). > > I don't own a car. I spend 20 minutes on the bus to work every day, > during which I can read. I finish at least a book a week on the bus. > On those occasions where I get a ride home, it takes about 15 minutes to > get home. I serious doubt a 10 minute drive turns into a 3 hour bus > trip. In 4 years of taking the same bus route every day, only once has > the bus had a breakdown. We all got off and waited for the next one 30 > minutes later. > > Unless you live in Podunk, South Nowhere, the transit system works > rather well. you should try it I actually did once, just to see if it was true what people like you say about public transportation. My normal car commute in Houston was between 20 and 25 minutes. When I took the bus it took 67 minutes and I had to transfer buses two times, standing in the sweltering heat of a blazing Houston summer, sweting through my suit the whole time, waiting for my next bus to arrive. Needless to say, public transportation lost the contest.

2003-01-12 14:02:00+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64n12vclg5pg3mm6n6ivk81vs59ofaej97@4ax.com... > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >You can make public > >transportation work for you - > Wrong. After spending many years on Mass Transit i've > come to the conclusion you can't. > > > > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- I suspect by "you" "they" mean the collective You, as in a town or city, as opposed to literally "you" the individal person. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 14:02:00+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:64n12vclg5pg3mm6n6ivk81vs59ofaej97@4ax.com... > On Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: > > >You can make public > >transportation work for you - > Wrong. After spending many years on Mass Transit i've > come to the conclusion you can't. > > > > > > ====================================================== > To reply remove No spam from my e-mail address. > > > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! > -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- I suspect by "you" "they" mean the collective You, as in a town or city, as opposed to literally "you" the individal person. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 14:11:44-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3e21c4a4.10213636@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:43:35 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <tUiU9.7259$qU5.5591838@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > ><kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > >> "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> message > >> news:8f532vgr43olod7b7175tliskhai18m0ue@4ax.com... > > > >> > On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do > >> > >just about anything. > > > >> > Knight Rider was a science fiction show. > > > >> So were pagers in DR. NO. > > > >And the handheld communicators in Star Trek... look remarkably like > >today's cell phones. > > > The thread that wouldn't die. Why should it die? We're obviously enjoying the discussion. > Buffy has ridden public transport, driven an SUV, and used a > cellphone, so I suppose there is a tenuous connection to the newsgroup > subject. Very tenuous. On the other hand, that's why I labeled the thread with OT when I started it so that people who care about such things can easily filter it out. > Has she ever supported a terrorist as far as we know? Going strictly according to the legal federal definition, Buffy and her friends *are* terrorists. Launching off rockets in crowded malls...

2003-01-12 14:11:44-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <3e21c4a4.10213636@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:43:35 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> > wrote: > > >In article <tUiU9.7259$qU5.5591838@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" > ><kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > >> "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in > >> message > >> news:8f532vgr43olod7b7175tliskhai18m0ue@4ax.com... > > > >> > On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do > >> > >just about anything. > > > >> > Knight Rider was a science fiction show. > > > >> So were pagers in DR. NO. > > > >And the handheld communicators in Star Trek... look remarkably like > >today's cell phones. > > > The thread that wouldn't die. Why should it die? We're obviously enjoying the discussion. > Buffy has ridden public transport, driven an SUV, and used a > cellphone, so I suppose there is a tenuous connection to the newsgroup > subject. Very tenuous. On the other hand, that's why I labeled the thread with OT when I started it so that people who care about such things can easily filter it out. > Has she ever supported a terrorist as far as we know? Going strictly according to the legal federal definition, Buffy and her friends *are* terrorists. Launching off rockets in crowded malls...

2003-01-12 14:17:24-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:17:01 +0000, Botch wrote: > So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and their > judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable is > cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of Illinois did > yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a controversial > decision. Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt he would have > made it if he had been planning to remain in politics. Yeah, because a system that's horribly horribly broken, that he's been trying to fix for years, but has been unable to, and left on its own is killing innocent people...what a coward to remove its ability to kill innocent people! People do horrible things the last day in office, but saying 'there are too many innocent people on death row, and I'm not letting this state kill them anymore' is not one of them. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-01-12 14:17:24-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:17:01 +0000, Botch wrote: > So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and their > judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable is > cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of Illinois did > yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a controversial > decision. Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt he would have > made it if he had been planning to remain in politics. Yeah, because a system that's horribly horribly broken, that he's been trying to fix for years, but has been unable to, and left on its own is killing innocent people...what a coward to remove its ability to kill innocent people! People do horrible things the last day in office, but saying 'there are too many innocent people on death row, and I'm not letting this state kill them anymore' is not one of them. -- David Cheatham <david@creeknet.com> NOYFB, P

2003-01-12 14:58:41+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:17:24 -0500, "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:17:01 +0000, Botch wrote: >> So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and their >> judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable is >> cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of Illinois did >> yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a controversial >> decision. Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt he would have >> made it if he had been planning to remain in politics. > >Yeah, because a system that's horribly horribly broken, that he's been >trying to fix for years, but has been unable to, and left on its own >is killing innocent people...what a coward to remove its ability to kill >innocent people! > >People do horrible things the last day in office, but saying 'there are >too many innocent people on death row, and I'm not letting this state kill >them anymore' is not one of them. Without arguing the issue, he could have done what he did anytime during is reign, yet waited until he was halfway out the door to do it. That's cowardice, he could make the decision and then not have to stick around to deal with the shit storm to follow. Since you seem to have such strong feelings on the matter, you should be asking why he waited this long to do it? Botch

2003-01-12 14:58:41+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:17:24 -0500, "David Cheatham" <david@creeknet.com> wrote: >On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:17:01 +0000, Botch wrote: >> So you're voting for a combination of what they think on issues and their >> judgement and ideals on everything else. What is unforgivable is >> cowardice in their decision making, like what the governor of Illinois did >> yesterday. A few days before he leaves office he makes a controversial >> decision. Without arguing the decision he made, I doubt he would have >> made it if he had been planning to remain in politics. > >Yeah, because a system that's horribly horribly broken, that he's been >trying to fix for years, but has been unable to, and left on its own >is killing innocent people...what a coward to remove its ability to kill >innocent people! > >People do horrible things the last day in office, but saying 'there are >too many innocent people on death row, and I'm not letting this state kill >them anymore' is not one of them. Without arguing the issue, he could have done what he did anytime during is reign, yet waited until he was halfway out the door to do it. That's cowardice, he could make the decision and then not have to stick around to deal with the shit storm to follow. Since you seem to have such strong feelings on the matter, you should be asking why he waited this long to do it? Botch

2003-01-12 15:01:18+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:11:44 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <3e21c4a4.10213636@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com >wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:43:35 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <tUiU9.7259$qU5.5591838@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" >> ><kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> message >> >> news:8f532vgr43olod7b7175tliskhai18m0ue@4ax.com... >> > >> >> > On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do >> >> > >just about anything. >> > >> >> > Knight Rider was a science fiction show. >> > >> >> So were pagers in DR. NO. >> > >> >And the handheld communicators in Star Trek... look remarkably like >> >today's cell phones. >> >> >> The thread that wouldn't die. > >Why should it die? We're obviously enjoying the discussion. > >> Buffy has ridden public transport, driven an SUV, and used a >> cellphone, so I suppose there is a tenuous connection to the newsgroup >> subject. > >Very tenuous. On the other hand, that's why I labeled the thread with OT >when I started it so that people who care about such things can easily >filter it out. > >> Has she ever supported a terrorist as far as we know? > >Going strictly according to the legal federal definition, Buffy and her >friends *are* terrorists. Launching off rockets in crowded malls... LoL....and the vamps and other assorted demon beasts from hell who try to kill her are actually freedom fighters from their perspectives. Botch

2003-01-12 15:01:18+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:11:44 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >In article <3e21c4a4.10213636@news.telus.net>, sillyman@famous.com >wrote: > >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 13:43:35 -0800, BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <tUiU9.7259$qU5.5591838@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" >> ><kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> > >> >> "Willow Rosenberg" <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> message >> >> news:8f532vgr43olod7b7175tliskhai18m0ue@4ax.com... >> > >> >> > On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >Didn't you watch Knight Rider? Computer controlled cars can do >> >> > >just about anything. >> > >> >> > Knight Rider was a science fiction show. >> > >> >> So were pagers in DR. NO. >> > >> >And the handheld communicators in Star Trek... look remarkably like >> >today's cell phones. >> >> >> The thread that wouldn't die. > >Why should it die? We're obviously enjoying the discussion. > >> Buffy has ridden public transport, driven an SUV, and used a >> cellphone, so I suppose there is a tenuous connection to the newsgroup >> subject. > >Very tenuous. On the other hand, that's why I labeled the thread with OT >when I started it so that people who care about such things can easily >filter it out. > >> Has she ever supported a terrorist as far as we know? > >Going strictly according to the legal federal definition, Buffy and her >friends *are* terrorists. Launching off rockets in crowded malls... LoL....and the vamps and other assorted demon beasts from hell who try to kill her are actually freedom fighters from their perspectives. Botch

2003-01-12 15:05:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:22:59 +0000, Ken wrote: > > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:iqj12vo29h2o08pq5licme2jukfhfi8ajv@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >Sure she could, in a station wagon. >> >> Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around >> mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little >> electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn >> business! >> >> Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to >> impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? >> >> Stimpson > > To balance out social conservatives who try to impose their "morally > correct" views on everyone. > > -- Ken from Chicago Excellent- one group breaks your arm, the other breaks your leg, "balance" is maintained.

2003-01-12 15:05:45-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (someone <yustabe@bellsouth.net>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:22:59 +0000, Ken wrote: > > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:iqj12vo29h2o08pq5licme2jukfhfi8ajv@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:06:57 GMT, Silverlock <croesus@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >Sure she could, in a station wagon. >> >> Again, the primary point is that it is NOT YOUR PLACE to go around >> mandating that people drive station wagons. Just go buy some little >> electric go-cart car, feel good about yourself, and mind your own damn >> business! >> >> Why do you busy bodied nosy little liberals always have to try to >> impose your stupid PC trends on the rest of us? >> >> Stimpson > > To balance out social conservatives who try to impose their "morally > correct" views on everyone. > > -- Ken from Chicago Excellent- one group breaks your arm, the other breaks your leg, "balance" is maintained.

2003-01-12 15:20:18-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


"Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<Q3TT9.6982$qU5.5349151@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>... > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:knqu1vg2oje7on7klobtivcjqdf5as2321@4ax.com... > > On 10 Jan 2003 14:52:55 -0800, eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of > > >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour > > >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily > > >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those > > >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, > > >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit > > >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a > > >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was > > >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy > > >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even > > >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > > > > > 99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car > > is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago > > during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are > > going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, > > unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of > > travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not > > move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and > > flustered. > > > > By comparison, you take the L in, you can get anywhere in the loop > > quickly and easily. You are FREE from your car. Not to mention that if > > you are coming from the outer city/subarbs, the L will get you > > downtown probably twice as fast as your car, as the expressways are > > often parking lots. > > > > You are correct overall though. You especially have a good point about > > carrying things. And outside of Chicago and New York, I am not certain > > that public transit is really a consistent advantage to the commuter. > > I used to ride the bus alot in Orange County, CA - but only because I > > was to young to drive. I find the metra and CTA systems in chicago are > > awesome. Other cities have pathetic public transportation, though. > > Even in Chicagoland, I drive my car to a "park and ride", or a Metra > > train station. > > > > Stimpson > > > > THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). > > Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > to tip. > > Natch, the VARIETY of computer-driven vehicles could be customized for the > region, from coupes, sedans, mini-vans, pickups to ATVs, "trikes" and > variation of the auto-balancing segway. Computer controlled cars are going to be a hard sell for the same reason that many people are terrified to fly even though even with the grisly spike represented by 9/11, commercial air travel is far safer than driving. Why? No one likes thinking they have no control over whether they live or die, even if on balance they're safer putting control in someone or something else's hands. That computer controlled car may be only 10% or less as likely to get you involved in a fatal crash, but lots of people will obsess about that miniscule chance that the system will go belly up and send them screaming off a mountain road into a canyon, helpless to deal with the situation. On the other hand, a lot of people might love to have a system that would let them relax on long, boring stretches of interstate highway where there are few hazards and just a lot of miles to get through--real cruise control. M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-12 15:20:18-08:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (eilandesq@charter.net)


"Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<Q3TT9.6982$qU5.5349151@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>... > "Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday> wrote in message > news:knqu1vg2oje7on7klobtivcjqdf5as2321@4ax.com... > > On 10 Jan 2003 14:52:55 -0800, eilandesq@charter.net (M. Scott Eiland) > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >Mass transit, by definition, negatively impacts large numbers of > > >people when it doesn't work right. It's not just you losing an hour > > >of work time, it's hundreds of thousands or millions of people daily > > >losing work time (or personal time, which is also valuable to those > > >who have it) that they would not have if they had cars. Over time, > > >that adds up as a cost. Not to mention that no form of mass transit > > >is as flexible as an automobile for getting to a specific place at a > > >specific time, particularly if you need to carry something. There was > > >a good reason that East Germans used to wait years to get a crappy > > >little car that lacked the power of a decent U.S. lawnmower. Even > > >behind the Iron Curtain, cars meant freedom. > > > > > 99% of the time, you are right. However, there ARE cases where a car > > is a prison. I cannot stand driving in or around downtown Chicago > > during business hours. If you want to get out of your car, you are > > going to have to park somewhere and probably pay 18.00 per hour, > > unless you manage to get a meter (highly unlikely). Your rate of > > travel will be SLOWER than that of a person on foot. You might not > > move AT ALL for 30 minutes at a time. You will be stressed and > > flustered. > > > > By comparison, you take the L in, you can get anywhere in the loop > > quickly and easily. You are FREE from your car. Not to mention that if > > you are coming from the outer city/subarbs, the L will get you > > downtown probably twice as fast as your car, as the expressways are > > often parking lots. > > > > You are correct overall though. You especially have a good point about > > carrying things. And outside of Chicago and New York, I am not certain > > that public transit is really a consistent advantage to the commuter. > > I used to ride the bus alot in Orange County, CA - but only because I > > was to young to drive. I find the metra and CTA systems in chicago are > > awesome. Other cities have pathetic public transportation, though. > > Even in Chicagoland, I drive my car to a "park and ride", or a Metra > > train station. > > > > Stimpson > > > > THE solution are COMPUTER-DRIVEN cars, aka the auto(mated) auto(mobile). > > Computer-driven cars can travel faster, closer and safer than human driven > cars. After dropping off passengers and cargo, they can go on to help > others. They would be LIKE computerized cabs with safer drivers and no need > to tip. > > Natch, the VARIETY of computer-driven vehicles could be customized for the > region, from coupes, sedans, mini-vans, pickups to ATVs, "trikes" and > variation of the auto-balancing segway. Computer controlled cars are going to be a hard sell for the same reason that many people are terrified to fly even though even with the grisly spike represented by 9/11, commercial air travel is far safer than driving. Why? No one likes thinking they have no control over whether they live or die, even if on balance they're safer putting control in someone or something else's hands. That computer controlled car may be only 10% or less as likely to get you involved in a fatal crash, but lots of people will obsess about that miniscule chance that the system will go belly up and send them screaming off a mountain road into a canyon, helpless to deal with the situation. On the other hand, a lot of people might love to have a system that would let them relax on long, boring stretches of interstate highway where there are few hazards and just a lot of miles to get through--real cruise control. M. Scott Eiland

2003-01-12 15:23:23-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> rose up and issued forth: >So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? How about for towing trailers and such. I like having the power and wheelbase to be able to pull a trailer full of stuff up a hill when I have needed to do so. >If you've got to >move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My wife's van gets the same MPG as my truck does, but can't tow very well, and while it has decent cargo space, it gets stuck in the snow a lot. >My >bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >'utility' needs. > My bet is your opinion as as colored and limited as mine is by your personal feelings. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "It never happened" -- Yar to Data (The Naked Now)

2003-01-12 15:23:23-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> rose up and issued forth: >So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? How about for towing trailers and such. I like having the power and wheelbase to be able to pull a trailer full of stuff up a hill when I have needed to do so. >If you've got to >move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My wife's van gets the same MPG as my truck does, but can't tow very well, and while it has decent cargo space, it gets stuck in the snow a lot. >My >bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >'utility' needs. > My bet is your opinion as as colored and limited as mine is by your personal feelings. -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org "It never happened" -- Yar to Data (The Naked Now)

2003-01-12 15:25:59-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> rose up and issued forth: > > >---------- >In article <nieporen-B00DC6.04423912012003@news-east.giganews.com>, David >Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > >> In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, >> "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >>>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>> It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >> >>>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >>>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >>>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >>>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >>>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >>>'utility' needs. >> >> I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't >> "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? > >Do the things I don't actually *need* cause problems in a geopolitical >sense? Do Arab terrorists make money from me having and using a drafting >table to do my artwork on? Let me know if the things I have that I don't >*need* are directly funding terrorism with my usage. > >Next! > >Deb. You have a computer, you have a television, you buy things in plastic containers, these all fund "terrorism" by using petroleum products. You don't "need" these things in your home, but you have them. Next! -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Today is Election Day, and we urge all citizens to vote NO with the weapon of their choice. - KVISR

2003-01-12 15:25:59-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> rose up and issued forth: > > >---------- >In article <nieporen-B00DC6.04423912012003@news-east.giganews.com>, David >Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > > >> In article <jM6U9.649667$%m4.1823299@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, >> "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >>>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>>> It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >> >>>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >>>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >>>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >>>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >>>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >>>'utility' needs. >> >> I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't >> "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? > >Do the things I don't actually *need* cause problems in a geopolitical >sense? Do Arab terrorists make money from me having and using a drafting >table to do my artwork on? Let me know if the things I have that I don't >*need* are directly funding terrorism with my usage. > >Next! > >Deb. You have a computer, you have a television, you buy things in plastic containers, these all fund "terrorism" by using petroleum products. You don't "need" these things in your home, but you have them. Next! -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Today is Election Day, and we urge all citizens to vote NO with the weapon of their choice. - KVISR

2003-01-12 15:26:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:08:21 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message >news:lqh22vk9703vrljd7j6nhm8jb9vpj2mk8l@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:20:13 GMT, "Ken" >> <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >> > >> ><sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message >> >news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... >> >> Segway? >> > >> >The human transporter invented by noted inventor Dean Kamen. It's an >> >auto-balancing two-wheeled vehicled. Unlike scooters, skateboards, skates >or >> >bikes, it's auto-balancing, making it safer than walking. It looks a lot >> >like a manual "push" lawn mower in having two wheels, but instead of in a >> >row like a bike, they are side-by-side and you step on a platform between >> >the two wheels and weighs about 75 pounds (about 32 kilograms). The >vehicle >> >has computer controlled gyros that balances itself akin to the way you >would >> >balance a broom resting on the palm of your hand. >> > >> >It's electric, recharged after several hours in household outlet and has >a >> >range of 17 miles and a maximum speed for consumer versions is 12.5 mph >and >> >17mph for industrial versions--deliberately so it can be approved for use >on >> >sidewalks. It's small enough to fit thru doors, even if one has to get >off >> >it and slide it thru sideways, onto trains, buses and into malls and >maybe >> >even many escalators and elevators. Oh yeah, it's quiet. It makes no more >> >noise than a rubber wheel rolling on the floor. >> > >> >The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public >> >transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban >home >> >to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown >and >> >"segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for >> >downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the >> >cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks >to >> >a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see >the >> >sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban >centers >> >would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and >> >parking of cars. >> > >> >-- Ken from Chicago >> > >> >> >> The problem is that to a number of people 75 pounds is like a ton, >> making it ungainly and hard to handle unless it's in use. Also it's >> not equipped for bad weather or carrying anything more than can be >> fit into some small saddle type bags it can be equipped with. >> One other problem, if you live in a major city, imagine all the people >> crowding the sidewalks, put even half those people on the sidewalk >> driving those and it would be more crowded or you could put them >> driving in the street competing with cars, which is like asking for a >> disaster. >> I like the things, they look like fun, I'd like to own one, but it's >> too expensive and IMHO not a practical solution unless all cars were >> eliminated to make room on the streets for them. >> >> Botch > >It can run in water and snow. > >It can carry people up to 300-350 pounds on the consumer model. Besides it's >meant to be like those motorized wheelchairs for physically challenged >people not a scooter. > >I'm sure sidewalk traffic would adjust. If Europeans can adapt motorized >traffic on streets meant for people and horses, I'm sure Americans can >adapt. > >-- Ken from Chicago > If it were used the way you're proposing then that would make it more of a scooter. The speed it travels alone does that also. Numerous 75 pound motorized vehicles driven by people with varying degrees of skill zipping up and down a crowded side walk doesn't seem practical to me. The weather issue isn't about if the machine can run in it it's about being open to the elements while riding it. I can't think of one woman I know who has to be dressed nicely for work using one, especially in bad weather. How many people ride their bikes or motorcycles in that type of weather? Like I said I do like it, but execpt for maybe specialized workplace usage and limited personal use it's not practical. Botch

2003-01-12 15:26:19+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Botch <keyser@boardermail.com>)


On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 23:08:21 GMT, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > >"Botch" <keyser@boardermail.com> wrote in message >news:lqh22vk9703vrljd7j6nhm8jb9vpj2mk8l@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 10:20:13 GMT, "Ken" >> <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: >> >> > >> ><sillyman@famous.com> wrote in message >> >news:3e20ccf5.583008@news.telus.net... >> >> Segway? >> > >> >The human transporter invented by noted inventor Dean Kamen. It's an >> >auto-balancing two-wheeled vehicled. Unlike scooters, skateboards, skates >or >> >bikes, it's auto-balancing, making it safer than walking. It looks a lot >> >like a manual "push" lawn mower in having two wheels, but instead of in a >> >row like a bike, they are side-by-side and you step on a platform between >> >the two wheels and weighs about 75 pounds (about 32 kilograms). The >vehicle >> >has computer controlled gyros that balances itself akin to the way you >would >> >balance a broom resting on the palm of your hand. >> > >> >It's electric, recharged after several hours in household outlet and has >a >> >range of 17 miles and a maximum speed for consumer versions is 12.5 mph >and >> >17mph for industrial versions--deliberately so it can be approved for use >on >> >sidewalks. It's small enough to fit thru doors, even if one has to get >off >> >it and slide it thru sideways, onto trains, buses and into malls and >maybe >> >even many escalators and elevators. Oh yeah, it's quiet. It makes no more >> >noise than a rubber wheel rolling on the floor. >> > >> >The "revolutionary" aspect of it would be it would could enable public >> >transportation to be far more popular. You "segway" from your suburban >home >> >to the local Metra (public passenger train) station and take it downtown >and >> >"segway" to your office--while not having to pay an arm and a leg for >> >downtown parking. At lunch, instead of having to settle for what's in the >> >cafeteria or only what's in your building, you could segway a few blocks >to >> >a restaurant or maybe to a park or museum or just cruising around to see >the >> >sights before returning to work. Of course those who live in urban >centers >> >would be able to travel farther and faster than on foot without costs and >> >parking of cars. >> > >> >-- Ken from Chicago >> > >> >> >> The problem is that to a number of people 75 pounds is like a ton, >> making it ungainly and hard to handle unless it's in use. Also it's >> not equipped for bad weather or carrying anything more than can be >> fit into some small saddle type bags it can be equipped with. >> One other problem, if you live in a major city, imagine all the people >> crowding the sidewalks, put even half those people on the sidewalk >> driving those and it would be more crowded or you could put them >> driving in the street competing with cars, which is like asking for a >> disaster. >> I like the things, they look like fun, I'd like to own one, but it's >> too expensive and IMHO not a practical solution unless all cars were >> eliminated to make room on the streets for them. >> >> Botch > >It can run in water and snow. > >It can carry people up to 300-350 pounds on the consumer model. Besides it's >meant to be like those motorized wheelchairs for physically challenged >people not a scooter. > >I'm sure sidewalk traffic would adjust. If Europeans can adapt motorized >traffic on streets meant for people and horses, I'm sure Americans can >adapt. > >-- Ken from Chicago > If it were used the way you're proposing then that would make it more of a scooter. The speed it travels alone does that also. Numerous 75 pound motorized vehicles driven by people with varying degrees of skill zipping up and down a crowded side walk doesn't seem practical to me. The weather issue isn't about if the machine can run in it it's about being open to the elements while riding it. I can't think of one woman I know who has to be dressed nicely for work using one, especially in bad weather. How many people ride their bikes or motorcycles in that type of weather? Like I said I do like it, but execpt for maybe specialized workplace usage and limited personal use it's not practical. Botch

2003-01-12 15:31:11-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <postmaster-7B82AA.10370812012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: >But you are missing the point. If we reduce our need for oil then the >demand for oil goes down while the supply remains the same. The oil >becomes less valuable and the amount of money they can sell it for goes >down as a result. Less money for the mid-east, less money for terrorism. I'm not missing the point; you're missing the post I responded to, which said, "It depends on where the oil comes from." It doesn't. It does depend on how much oil is used, and I didn't dispute that. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 15:31:11-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <postmaster-7B82AA.10370812012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net> wrote: >But you are missing the point. If we reduce our need for oil then the >demand for oil goes down while the supply remains the same. The oil >becomes less valuable and the amount of money they can sell it for goes >down as a result. Less money for the mid-east, less money for terrorism. I'm not missing the point; you're missing the post I responded to, which said, "It depends on where the oil comes from." It doesn't. It does depend on how much oil is used, and I didn't dispute that. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 15:33:41-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <3E213E7E.6000501@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >>>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >>>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >>>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >>>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >>>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >>>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >>>'utility' needs. >> I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't >> "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? >Why are people so offended by the word "need"? It's not the _word_ that offends. It's the _mindset_ that says, "I will tell you how you should run your life." Deborah thinks she can decide for other people how they should live. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 15:33:41-05:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In <3E213E7E.6000501@baerana.com>, Eeyore48 <eeyore48@baerana.com> wrote: >David Marc Nieporent wrote: >> "Deborah Terreson" <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com> wrote: >>>BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>It has nothing to do with living on mountaintops and driving off-road. >>>So why the fuel inefficient four-wheel design and oversized wheels and >>>engines? What, are we outrunning mudslides in California? If you've got to >>>move stuff, a van works just dandy and gets double the fuel efficiency. My >>>bet is still on the popularity being more due to sheep-like, >>>trend-following, idiot mentality than any kind of common sense or actual >>>'utility' needs. >> I'll bet there are an awful lot of possessions in your house that you don't >> "need." Who are you to decide whether SUV owners "need" them? >Why are people so offended by the word "need"? It's not the _word_ that offends. It's the _mindset_ that says, "I will tell you how you should run your life." Deborah thinks she can decide for other people how they should live. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-12 15:36:11-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> rose up and issued forth: >On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >wrote: > >>Come on, we both watch the West Wing. >I don't watch the west wing, is that where the Goat >reference comes from? > >Don't watch the West Wing, I'm usually watching >Twlight Zone. > Yes, one of the new characters on the show, a speechwriter, was given an office in the West Wing rather than in the other building where the rest of the writers work, and is being given minor hazing about it, including people storing their bicycles in his office. In this weeks episode, the President is supposed to have a "photo op" with a cow for an organization that provides milk cows and goats to poor families, but instead it turns out to be a goat they send instead. Not wanting pictures of the President with a goat coming out before a big vote on a new bill that evening, they postpone the picture till later in the evening, and sombody takes the goat and stores it in the new guys office as well. Thus, when BTR said he brought his bicycle into the office, the goat comment arose. :) -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for thou arte Crunchy and taste good with Ketchup.

2003-01-12 15:36:11-06:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - ("Rev. Cyohtee - O'k�home Ehohatse" <cyohtee@barbarian.org>)


Out of the ether Willow Rosenberg <Willow___RosenbergNOSPAM@hotmail.com> rose up and issued forth: >On David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> >wrote: > >>Come on, we both watch the West Wing. >I don't watch the west wing, is that where the Goat >reference comes from? > >Don't watch the West Wing, I'm usually watching >Twlight Zone. > Yes, one of the new characters on the show, a speechwriter, was given an office in the West Wing rather than in the other building where the rest of the writers work, and is being given minor hazing about it, including people storing their bicycles in his office. In this weeks episode, the President is supposed to have a "photo op" with a cow for an organization that provides milk cows and goats to poor families, but instead it turns out to be a goat they send instead. Not wanting pictures of the President with a goat coming out before a big vote on a new bill that evening, they postpone the picture till later in the evening, and sombody takes the goat and stores it in the new guys office as well. Thus, when BTR said he brought his bicycle into the office, the goat comment arose. :) -- Cyo cyohtee@ucan.foad.org http://www.barbarian.org/~cyohtee http://www.barbarian.org Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for thou arte Crunchy and taste good with Ketchup.

2003-01-12 15:53:21+00:00 - Re: OT - New SUV/Terrorism Ads - (Deborah Terreson <foodNOTSPAMandart@attbi.com>)


---------- In article <Jp8U9.38424$p_6.3291262@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Aethelrede" <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > > Deborah Terreson wrote in message ... >> >> >>---------- >>In article <3E1F618E.316C264B@mindspring.com>, Vince Macek >><vmacek@mindspring.com> wrote: >> >> >>> Reading this thread I think my next car will be that 1960s Valiant I've > been >>> wanting - that 'compact' should hold its own against nearly anything on > the >>> road. >> >>And get better gas mileage to boot! Those old cars have carburetors in them >>- just tweak the things to run lean, run a higher octane fuel, change the >>oil and air filters religiously and you can get great economy out of them. >>Got me an '83 Toyota Hi-Lux with a Camry engine (22-R, 2.3 litre) in it, >>that's nearly 30 mpg on the highway, with a cap on the back! >> >>Ha! Eat that Mr. Suburban! > > I have an 89 Corolla with almost 140,000 miles on it that still gets > around 32 mpg even though I rarely drive more than 30-40 miles a day and > only on local roads. I keep it because the engine and transmission are > still working well, and if the power is a little less than it was, the body > is rusting away and weighing less so things are sort of evening out. And > the radio still works. > Besides, I just had to buy a new battery, so I have to keep it over the > winter at least to get some return on the money. You'd be amazed on how far you can make a car go. My first car was an '82 Celica that I kept for 14 years (with