Why I love digital

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Scott Stewart wrote:


Unfortuantely, as history shows, people generally make wrong choices about
such matters.

Some appropriate references please?

It is truly up to people to make the right choices, but they don't. And
in time, either governments will impose limits

That would be right up your alley, right? The "minority bleeding hearts" get
to dictate policy to everyone else.

or the market will and
when the market does you can be sure that there will associated
consequences. 1973/74 refers.

Oh, like the part of this thread that said "I can't understand the
automobile co. economics" - truer words were never spoken!!

In this thread I've often pointed out that for people who _need_ such
vehicles, I have no objection at all. My objection is the use of gas
guzzling behemoths for the daily commute from the 'burbs to the city.
Wastes gas, pollutes, crowds the roads and parking.


I recognized your 101 reference for what it was: defelection from the
topic at hand which is already well OT for the NG. I'll add that I live
in 101 land. I'll also add that it is no different than affirmative
action and other "corrective" laws in both the US and Canada (and
elsewhere). Et de toute façon, je suis bilingue. Tes opinions mal
fondées et ineptes sur ce sujet ne m'impressionnent pas du tout.

I'm happy you are bilingual, I would guess it is an asset, particularly
where you reside. However that doesn't change my position on how you would
force your views and beliefs on others, and I'll think you will find I share
that opinion with many others.

I'd
hapilly see the law stricken, but it would harldy have any effect on
anything or anyone.

The fact that you even think that is part of the problem with your position
with this thread's foundation.



I don't know that my ideas are best, but I do know that the majority of
suburban (and many rural living white colar) SUV owners don't need that
vehicle for their daily comutes to work in the city... yet they do so over
200 days/year. It wastes a non-renewable resource, it pollutes. Urban
sprawl is bad enough and on top of that people are wasting fuel. It is
mass denial of a very serious problem.

Be careful, proper reasoning is starting to peek through again. Better get
that in check quickly.
;-)




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
Big Bill wrote:



You still paint with too broad a brush, and just refuse to take actual
circumstances into account.


Parting shot: SUV's waste gas and pollute. I doubt that 9 in 10 SUV
owners can't get by 99% of the time without something of an ordinary
car. You seem to like to avoid the gas wasting and polluting issue, but
that is typical of those who know there is no defence, so just deflect
and point eleswhere.


There are viable alternatives. For the family with more than 2
children, a larger vehicle is NECESSARY to accommodate the child safety
seats. However, minivans usually get MUCH better gas mileage, and are
more stable.


--
Ron Hunter

Big Bill wrote:

But, I guess it's asking too much for you to read to see what's said,
instead of just for grist for your argument.


I read it all, and it was all deflection. Period.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Big Bill wrote:

But, I guess it's asking too much for you to read to see what's said,
instead of just for grist for your argument.


I read it all, and it was all deflection. Period.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Scott Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Scott Stewart wrote:


Unfortuantely, as history shows, people generally make wrong choices about
such matters.


Some appropriate references please?

Do your own homework. I suggest the Dutch tulip bulb market (1600's)
and the US stock market crash of 1929 as good starting points. Brush up
with some recent dot com studies.

post 73/74: Following the oil crisis a general trend was to more
efficient vehicles and legislation to curb oil consumption. Over time,
people have forgotten, legislation has weakened or been loopholed and
we've drifted up to high consumption again. The indirect costs (US
military involvement; Sept 11, etc) are an additional burden tied to oil
consumption, most esp. in the US.

But it will get worse. The Chinese economy is growing rapidly and their
thirst for oil is already driving up demand and will only grow.
(Witness tension between China and Japan over a Russian oil line that
will skirt China to deliver oil to Japan ... China wants access to that
oil but the Japanese are paying top dollar to avoid running that line
through China.)

Oh, like the part of this thread that said "I can't understand the
automobile co. economics" - truer words were never spoken!!

I understand them all too well. The auto companies are creaming huge
profit on the SUV's and little on more economical models. That is the
only thing they care about.

And people who buy into this sham are simply hurting the economy and the
environment.

I'm happy you are bilingual, I would guess it is an asset, particularly
where you reside. However that doesn't change my position on how you would
force your views and beliefs on others, and I'll think you will find I share
that opinion with many others.

Tell you what... you fix affiramtive action in the US before you comment
on what is wrong here, 'kay?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Scott Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Scott Stewart wrote:


Unfortuantely, as history shows, people generally make wrong choices about
such matters.


Some appropriate references please?

Do your own homework. I suggest the Dutch tulip bulb market (1600's)
and the US stock market crash of 1929 as good starting points. Brush up
with some recent dot com studies.

post 73/74: Following the oil crisis a general trend was to more
efficient vehicles and legislation to curb oil consumption. Over time,
people have forgotten, legislation has weakened or been loopholed and
we've drifted up to high consumption again. The indirect costs (US
military involvement; Sept 11, etc) are an additional burden tied to oil
consumption, most esp. in the US.

But it will get worse. The Chinese economy is growing rapidly and their
thirst for oil is already driving up demand and will only grow.
(Witness tension between China and Japan over a Russian oil line that
will skirt China to deliver oil to Japan ... China wants access to that
oil but the Japanese are paying top dollar to avoid running that line
through China.)

Oh, like the part of this thread that said "I can't understand the
automobile co. economics" - truer words were never spoken!!

I understand them all too well. The auto companies are creaming huge
profit on the SUV's and little on more economical models. That is the
only thing they care about.

And people who buy into this sham are simply hurting the economy and the
environment.

I'm happy you are bilingual, I would guess it is an asset, particularly
where you reside. However that doesn't change my position on how you would
force your views and beliefs on others, and I'll think you will find I share
that opinion with many others.

Tell you what... you fix affiramtive action in the US before you comment
on what is wrong here, 'kay?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ron Hunter wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Big Bill wrote:



You still paint with too broad a brush, and just refuse to take
actual circumstances into account.



Parting shot: SUV's waste gas and pollute. I doubt that 9 in 10
SUV owners can't get by 99% of the time without something of an
ordinary car. You seem to like to avoid the gas wasting and
polluting issue, but that is typical of those who know there is no
defence, so just deflect and point eleswhere.


There are viable alternatives. For the family with more than 2
children, a larger vehicle is NECESSARY to accommodate the child
safety seats. However, minivans usually get MUCH better gas mileage,
and are more stable.

Again, where there is truly a need I have little objection. It is the
'burb-city-burb commuters that are the worst case.

SUV's have improved in stability and fuel consumption. They are still
worse than minivans, however.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Ron Hunter wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

Big Bill wrote:



You still paint with too broad a brush, and just refuse to take
actual circumstances into account.



Parting shot: SUV's waste gas and pollute. I doubt that 9 in 10
SUV owners can't get by 99% of the time without something of an
ordinary car. You seem to like to avoid the gas wasting and
polluting issue, but that is typical of those who know there is no
defence, so just deflect and point eleswhere.


There are viable alternatives. For the family with more than 2
children, a larger vehicle is NECESSARY to accommodate the child
safety seats. However, minivans usually get MUCH better gas mileage,
and are more stable.

Again, where there is truly a need I have little objection. It is the
'burb-city-burb commuters that are the worst case.

SUV's have improved in stability and fuel consumption. They are still
worse than minivans, however.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Scott Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Scott Stewart wrote:


Unfortuantely, as history shows, people generally make wrong choices
about such matters.


Some appropriate references please?

Do your own homework. I suggest the Dutch tulip bulb market (1600's) and
the US stock market crash of 1929 as good starting points. Brush up with
some recent dot com studies.

post 73/74: Following the oil crisis a general trend was to more efficient
vehicles and legislation to curb oil consumption. Over time, people have
forgotten, legislation has weakened or been loopholed and we've drifted up
to high consumption again. The indirect costs (US military involvement;
Sept 11, etc) are an additional burden tied to oil consumption, most esp.
in the US.

But it will get worse. The Chinese economy is growing rapidly and their
thirst for oil is already driving up demand and will only grow. (Witness
tension between China and Japan over a Russian oil line that will skirt
China to deliver oil to Japan ... China wants access to that oil but the
Japanese are paying top dollar to avoid running that line through China.)

Oh, like the part of this thread that said "I can't understand the
automobile co. economics" - truer words were never spoken!!

I understand them all too well. The auto companies are creaming huge
profit on the SUV's and little on more economical models. That is the
only thing they care about.

Since, in your own words, in another thread, you mentioned: "I'm a marketing
guy", would you suggest concentrating on the less profitable models. And,
by the way, last time I looked nobody is forcing anyone to buy a more
profitable model. They are all available for purchase. The customers make
their own choices and, if your theories hold true, any incentives offered
should have no effect. 'kay?


And people who buy into this sham are simply hurting the economy and the
environment.

I'm happy you are bilingual, I would guess it is an asset, particularly
where you reside. However that doesn't change my position on how you
would force your views and beliefs on others, and I'll think you will
find I share that opinion with many others.

Tell you what... you fix affiramtive action in the US before you comment
on what is wrong here, 'kay?

Nice deflection.
I'm glad you agree that it is wrong and that it goes to the point of
imposing your choices on everyone else.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Scott Stewart wrote:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...

Scott Stewart wrote:


Unfortuantely, as history shows, people generally make wrong choices
about such matters.


Some appropriate references please?

Do your own homework. I suggest the Dutch tulip bulb market (1600's) and
the US stock market crash of 1929 as good starting points. Brush up with
some recent dot com studies.

post 73/74: Following the oil crisis a general trend was to more efficient
vehicles and legislation to curb oil consumption. Over time, people have
forgotten, legislation has weakened or been loopholed and we've drifted up
to high consumption again. The indirect costs (US military involvement;
Sept 11, etc) are an additional burden tied to oil consumption, most esp.
in the US.

But it will get worse. The Chinese economy is growing rapidly and their
thirst for oil is already driving up demand and will only grow. (Witness
tension between China and Japan over a Russian oil line that will skirt
China to deliver oil to Japan ... China wants access to that oil but the
Japanese are paying top dollar to avoid running that line through China.)

Oh, like the part of this thread that said "I can't understand the
automobile co. economics" - truer words were never spoken!!

I understand them all too well. The auto companies are creaming huge
profit on the SUV's and little on more economical models. That is the
only thing they care about.

Since, in your own words, in another thread, you mentioned: "I'm a marketing
guy", would you suggest concentrating on the less profitable models. And,
by the way, last time I looked nobody is forcing anyone to buy a more
profitable model. They are all available for purchase. The customers make
their own choices and, if your theories hold true, any incentives offered
should have no effect. 'kay?


And people who buy into this sham are simply hurting the economy and the
environment.

I'm happy you are bilingual, I would guess it is an asset, particularly
where you reside. However that doesn't change my position on how you
would force your views and beliefs on others, and I'll think you will
find I share that opinion with many others.

Tell you what... you fix affiramtive action in the US before you comment
on what is wrong here, 'kay?

Nice deflection.
I'm glad you agree that it is wrong and that it goes to the point of
imposing your choices on everyone else.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.