"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
(Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik . wrote:
wrote:

What we should be doing is exploring for more oil in any
reasonable place. And that includes ANWR, which should have
been done a long time ago, if it were not for the environmental
whackos.

It's whacko to expect ANWR would solve our oil problems.

Every little bit helps.

But, a three percent difference in gas mileage for an entire class
of vehicles is a joke? (I know - it was Rod Speed who's spouting
this nonsense, but still...)


At what cost?

Jim! The manufacturers make changes to the models every year!

Not major design changes.They reuse the same platforms and redesign those
about every 3-4 years,sometimes a lot longer than that.Look at how long the
Camaro platform was around.

Saw a
guy on TV last week, reprogramming the computer in a stock Mustang
that was sitting on a dynamometer (??? - car sitting on rack with
rollers under the drive wheels - might have the name of the machine
wrong). Of course, film editing made it look easy - maybe it took a
couple of hours. He used a laptop computer and a rack of test
instruments. I'm no mechanic, but I simply don't believe that small
changes are as expensive as they're imagined to be. I mean, would you
ever decide to throw away dollar bills because they're not as exciting
as a $20?



Auto makers have to engineer their electronic engine controls to insure
proper performance under a WIDE variety of operating conditions and
weather.

That's a big difference from tuning for a race track or hobbyist purposes.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"ameijers" wrote in
:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
(snip)

Well, based on the fact that people are dumping SUVs left and right,
I'd
say
the manufacturers have done absolutely NO research into what people
want. Don't you think they could use a kick in the ass? Maybe not
legislation,
but
threats of same. And, brief tax breaks if they agree to get their
heads
out
of their asses.

Apologies for prolonging this greasy spot of a thread, but I just had
to jump in here. The reason the 'new' wanna-be SUVs are popular, and
the real SUVs are becoming less popular, aside from the obvious gas
mileage questions, are that the baby car-like SUVs are more like what
people really want, Station Wagons. If that damn CAFE law hadn't
basically outlawed traditional wagons (RWD, v8, capable of pulling at
least a small trailer, hold 6 plus luggage, at prices normal people
can afford),


IMO,CAFE did not "effectively outlaw" those vehicles,the domestic
automakers chose to not develop newmodels with better gas mileage.
They wanted to keep making the old lines they made since the '50's.
I note that foreign carmakers managed to do it.

I really think the body-on-frame SUVs never would have
become so popular. Wagons fit what people really do with cars, have a
bigger interior cube than all but full-size SUVs, handle better, get
better MPG, etc. Minvans, the supposed replacement for wagons, are a
poor substitute in the handling and towing categories,

which FEW ordinary people ever use.
A rental would suffice for the occasional towing tasks.Just like people
rent a U-Haul when they need one,they don't go out and buy a Big Truck
because they need one once a year.

and only work
as well as haulers if you yank out the seats, or are rich enough to
get one with those complicated folding seats.

Sometimes the best thing the government can do is just get the hell
out of the way. The law of unintended consequences applies to almost
everything they do, no matter how well intentioned. If free-market gas
is $2.50 a gallon, the free market will bring forth the high-efficency
engines, non-behemoth sizes, etc.

aem sends...



I see nothing wrong with government adjusting gas taxes and regulating the
amount of foreign oil imported into the US;that is one of their tasks
permitted in the Constitution(regulating foreign trade).
Then people make their own choices as to fuel-efficient vehicles.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Does your profession involve automobiles? If yes, in what
capacity?

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

But not to your prediction that tires, gear ratios and
transmission programming have insignificant effects on gas
mileage.

I never ever said anything like that. I JUST said that you wont
get anything like that completely silly 20% YOU waved around.

As I explained, my number was arbitrary,

Completely silly, actually.

just as yours are.

Wrong again.

Back up your claim that 3-4 mechanical changes won't produce
"X", whatever "X" is. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Someone else already provided the official numbers with front
wheel drive. There are plenty of other numbers on the other
changes. Even you should be able to find them.

No.

Yep.

You're the one making claims that the numbers on "other changes"
are false.

Lie.

Back up your claims.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

You must have this information right at your fingertips, hillbilly.

Another lie, ****wit.

Let's see it.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to use the official
numbers to see what needs to be done to achieve a 20% saving
and realise that its a LOT more than those 3 things you made
such a spectacular fool of yourself waving around in here.

Game, set and match.

There are no "official numbers" for changes which haven't been made yet.

None of the 3 changes you proposed havent been made yet.

The choice between front wheel drive and rear wheel drive has
been around for well over 30 years now and its perfectly obvious
that that alone doesnt make much difference to fuel economy.

The different tires available have been available for
even longer than that and its perfectly obvious what
effect that has on fuel economy for all of that time too.

The different shift points is something thats been very thoroughly
studied for as long as manufacturers have started to care about
fuel economy in cars for. And while that hasnt mattered as much
to north american car manufacturers, the europeans have been
interested in that stuff ever since they started to use automatic
transmissions in significant numbers, because they have had
very high fuel taxes for all of that time.

However, you seem to think they're out there somewhere.

Corse they are. AND you can work it out the other way too,
use the official fuel economy figures, see what it takes design
wise to achieve a 20% saving, and see that that stuff above
is nothing like enough to achieve 20% in total with all 3 used.

The main way to get 20% or better improvements in fuel
economy is to use diesel engines, aerodynamic bodys,
low profile cars etc. The problem is that the last cant be
used with SUVs because most of those who buy them
feel safer because of the higher seating position and
that aint good for the fuel economy, stupid.

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Even just taking a SUV and eliminating the 4WD and the tires
that are inappropriate for urban use, and changing the shift
points wont do more than a couple of percent at best.

You just chose an arbitrary number, just like I did.

Nope.

Back it up, or accept the fact that we're talking about
arbitrary numbers.

I'm not, I'm using the official govt fuel economy data.

So did whoever it was who rubbed your nose in the
real numbers with the front wheel drive question.

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

Rear-end gear changes, tire changes. Where did you get your
"figures"
from?

Those official figures and others usually
conducted by motoring organisations etc.

Show me some. Now.

Those arent visible to other than members.

You're spouting the figures,

Lie. I just ****ed on YOUR stupid fantasy about 20%

so you must be a member. Show them. Now.

Go and **** yourself. Now.

That settles that. Other than the 12 pack you've been working on all
day, you have NO valid source for YOUR guesses. At least I
acknowledge that I've been guessing.

No.

Yep.

You've said that the information's available for your numbers, you
implied that you knew where, and then refused to provide them.

I told you that they arent available TO YOU and told you that even
someone as stupid as you should be able to find them using google
and rubbed your nose in the FACT that even you should be able to
use the official fuel economy figures you already have had cited to
see what is necessary design wise to achieve a 20% saving, and
see that thats a lot more than the 3 design choices you stupid pig
ignorantly claimed could achive a 20% saving. YOU ARE WRONG
and the official numbers prove that.

You've also provided the completely superfluous proof
that you couldnt bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag
even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.

Doug Miller wrote:
Changing the drive train from RWD to FWD is very, very far from being a
"simple change".

as a side note, the winner of the "orange crush" demolition derby last
night was driving a 70s era FWD V8 eldorado. made sense to me.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"FDR" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"FDR" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"FDR" wrote in
news

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Gonzo" wrote in
:

"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:04:10 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:

Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the
next attack so we can get your permission to go after the
source next time.


The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding
until 9-11.

Not true.
Bin Laden alone made several attacks on the US and US overseas
embassies and military well before 9-11. Remeember the FIRST WTC
bombing,when CLINTON
was President? Or the two Embassy bombings or the USS Cole
bombing?

A scan of the National Geographic back issues should give a
good idea good prevailing relationships that had existed
through time.

Oh,yeah,that's a -great- source for political data. (not!)


So what were the events that led to 9-11 that spawned the
current mess? Physically 9-11 did appear out of thin air.

No,it did not.Not considering the previous attacks,like
WTC-bombing #ONE.


But there
was a lot happening prior to that would cause a bunch of
technologically naive Arabs to learn enough to fly a plane and
crash them with deadly effect. You cannot defeat a billion of
angry muslims to prevent another attack. So you must work out
a political solution and neither going to war or building space
age defences is going to do it.

Going to war will turn Iraq to a democratic state,and already is
fostering democratic changes in other ME states.

But will it be a positive democratic state? If they elect an
asshole as their leader, then we are in just as bad a situation as
before. Eemocracy does not equal a positive result necssarily.
Hey, we have a Democracy here and look, it got us Bush as
President.

Thankfully.
Otherwise,we would have surrendered to Islamic fanaticism shortly
after Kerry was elected.And surrendered to the UN,too.

Instead we are just generating more Islamic fanaticism. Thanks
George!


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net




We are not generating anything that was not already there.

I see, Islamic fanatics are born, not created. It's a feature, like
dark hair or blue eyes. Well, you taught me something I never knew.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net




No,if you read Memri.org, or other sources,you might know about how
mosques
teach radical Wahabbi Islam and spread hate of non-Islamics.
How those Arabic countries use anti-West hatred to distract their people
from internal issues

Sounds like what we do; use war and hate to distract us from our problems.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The founders stated their belief in that document. This does not mean that
you should justify bad choices by waving that document. If you do that,
you're no different than an Islamic extremist who justifies his violence
by
waving the Koran. The minute you stop thinking for yourself, you're
nothing
but a rock.

Who the hell do you think you are, to tell me that my choices are "bad"?

Weren't we talking about large numbers of consumers who buy an SUV because
they think it'll change their lives, cure baldness, etc? How did this become
all about you?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I guess it's impossible, then. Forgive me for suggesting it.

Nobody said it's impossible, just impractical. And what you *should* be
asking
forgiveness for is launching a rant "why don't they just..." without
having
thought it through first.

I haven't "thought it through"??? You're making just as much of an absolute
statement, with little or nothing to back it up. Or....do you have some
information you're withholding, just to create suspense?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Why is it practical, then, for pickup trucks to be built with either 4WD
or
2WD?

To clarify: 4WD or RWD. Look at how the drive trains are made.

Both are available in large quantities, or at least they were 2 days
ago when a friend of mine bought her Tundra, and also shopped Ford & Chevy
dealers on the same street.

Are you saying it's MECHANICALLY impractical, or impractical in a business
sense?

Mechanically impractical.

We're going in circles here. You can walk into a truck dealer anytime you
want and buy either a 2WD or 4WD truck. Forget FRONT wheel drive for the
moment. Why is it mechanically impractical to offer a choice in SUVs?

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


Perhaps, but some trucks will downshift out of overdrive or 5th or
whatever,
too soon and for too long when all you wanted to do was move gradually
from
55 to 65 mph. In other words, they behave as if it's a panic situation, or
are programmed with the assumption that you're hauling lots of weight.
Don't
tell me "no" - it happens with my truck,

You're stepping on the gas too hard. :-)

Nope.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

That settles that. Other than the 12 pack you've been working on all day,
you have NO valid source for YOUR guesses. At least I acknowledge that
I've
been guessing.

Now, if we could just get you to acknowledge that your whole argument is
worthless, being based (as you have admitted) on guesswork instead of
fact...

If you drive all day with your lights on, the engine works just a little bit
harder, and it affects gas mileage. So, running lights, which are now
standard on many cars, use a lower wattage bulb.

So, do *not* tell me that when an engine has to turn another 100 lbs of
metal that's doing nothing when not in 4WD, it's not going to have an
effect. I don't need to provide figures. This is intuitive, although you may
be lacking that skill, in which case I offer my condolences.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"FDR" wrote in
:


Instead we are just generating more Islamic fanaticism. Thanks George!


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net




We are not generating anything that was not already there.



An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international
terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of
London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in
a new kind of war.

They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a
possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically
astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move
toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by
invading Iraq.

'Self-sustaining' jihad

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is
self-sustaining," where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight
America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the
explosion of violence in Iraq:

The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March
2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before
the 2003 U.S. invasion.





--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other things,
like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a car instead
of
a
truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive train
from
RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have some
mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work that way.

Who said "mystical"? I believe it's you that's been focused on what a
small
difference it would make. But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a
vehicle, and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Changing the drive train from RWD to FWD is very, very far from being a
"simple change".

Zzzzzzzzzz.........

90% of SUV owners would be better off with FWD. Making the change for
millions of vehicles is very cost effective.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

The different shift points is something thats been very thoroughly
studied for as long as manufacturers have started to care about
fuel economy in cars for. And while that hasnt mattered as much
to north american car manufacturers, the europeans have been
interested in that stuff ever since they started to use automatic
transmissions in significant numbers, because they have had
very high fuel taxes for all of that time.

Hmmm. Yesterday, when you were drunk, you were suggesting that this factor
was irrelevant. Now, it's real and worthwhile.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


Auto makers have to engineer their electronic engine controls to insure
proper performance under a WIDE variety of operating conditions and
weather.

That's true of any car, and means nothing with regard to SUVs or any other
single category of car. If Ford wanted to make an Explorer shift like a
Crown Victoria, they could do it for peanuts.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .


Except that they are not getting OUR "oil money",which is going to
Canada,Venezuela,and Mexico.


Cut it out already, will ya?

Supplied Domestically 38.2 %
Canada 9.2 %
Saudi Arabia 8.0 %
Venezuela 7.8 %
Mexico 7.0 %
Nigeria 4.5 %
Iraq* 3.7 %
United Kingdom 2.9 %
Norway 2.4 %
Colombia 2.7 %
Angola 2.0 %
All Other Countries 11.6 %




Well,then by your numbers,the ME is only getting ~12% of US money
spent on petroleum.

Then (sorry to take a sudden left turn), but we have no business being
in Iraq.




National security interests.They invaded Kuwait once,threatened the
worlds'
oil supplies,were pursuing WMD,had already -USED- WMD on their own
people,and were moving to aid terrorism that attacked us.

As you can see,if the world's oil supplies are threatened,it affects
us,too.

Hey! You said we weren't there because of the oil. :-)

And, we didn't give a **** what he did to his own people. That was a red
herring, and a convenient one for your president.



Yes,US people care about other countries and their woes.
Why else would we donate so much relief supplies,give aid and assistance?
Bosnia had no oil,yet we acted there.

We respond to these situations in an unequal fashion, depending on what we
have to gain. This is why we did not commit thousands of troops to whichever
African countries were in the midst of worse atrocities than anything Saddam
did. Either we react consistently, or your president needs to keep his mouth
shut about things like that.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:




And, we didn't give a **** what he did to his own people. That was a red
herring, and a convenient one for your president.



Like it or not,he's YOUR President,too.

Nope. For this one, I make an exception. I didn't vote for his father, but I
respected him. This one isn't fit to breath the same air as I am. I've
disowned him. He's an embarrassment.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Perhaps, but you know damned well that George could NEVER have come up
with
such an interesting use of a word, although "nookular" is kind of funny
after the 8 millionth repetition.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both pronounce the word the same way that
President Bush does - please include them in your laughter.

Of course.

Doug Kanter wrote in
message ...
Doug Miller wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other things,
like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a car instead of
a truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive train from
RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have some
mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work that way.

Who said "mystical"? I believe it's you that's been focused on what a small
difference it would make. But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a
vehicle, and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Changing the drive train from RWD to FWD is very, very far from being a
"simple change".

Zzzzzzzzzz.........

Wake up, dozy.....

90% of SUV owners would be better off with FWD.

By **** all in fact on their fuel bill. And they'd save MUCH
more by having one of the non SUV FWD cars too.

Making the change for millions of vehicles is very cost effective.

No point. They already pay a lot more in lousy
fuel economy with those steaming turds on wheels.

Rod Speed wrote

The different shift points is something thats been very thoroughly
studied for as long as manufacturers have started to care about
fuel economy in cars for. And while that hasnt mattered as much
to north american car manufacturers, the europeans have been
interested in that stuff ever since they started to use automatic
transmissions in significant numbers, because they have had
very high fuel taxes for all of that time.

Hmmm.

Humming aint gunna save you bacon.

Yesterday, when you were drunk, you were suggesting that this factor
was irrelevant.

Lying aint gunna save your bacon.

Now, it's real and worthwhile.

That is what I said all along.

I JUST rubbed your nose in the FACT that its nothing like 20%, liar.

Doug Kanter wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

That settles that. Other than the 12 pack you've been working on
all day, you have NO valid source for YOUR guesses. At least I
acknowledge that I've been guessing.

Now, if we could just get you to acknowledge that your whole
argument is worthless, being based (as you have admitted) on
guesswork instead of fact...

If you drive all day with your lights on, the engine works just a
little bit harder, and it affects gas mileage.

By bugger all in fact.

So, running lights, which are now standard
on many cars, use a lower wattage bulb.

Fraid not.

So, do *not* tell me that when an engine has to turn another
100 lbs of metal that's doing nothing when not in 4WD,

Thats a lie.

it's not going to have an effect.

The point is its a small effect.

I don't need to provide figures.

Yes you do when you make such a spectacular fool of
yourself when you plucked that 20% figure from your arse.

Reams of your pathetic excuse for bull**** flushed where it belongs.

Jim Yanik wrote:

No,if you read Memri.org, or other sources,you might know about how mosques
teach radical Wahabbi Islam and spread hate of non-Islamics.

According to some reports, "MEMRI is an invention of Colonel Yigal
Carmon, who spent 22 years in Israeli intelligence and later served as
counter-terrorism adviser to former Israeli premiers Yitzak Shamir and
Yitzak Rabin.)" Their job is to dig up dirt in Arab countries, so the
picture you get is very distorted. It would be the same as me
travelling all over the US filming crazies and fanatics, recording
quotes from talk-radio, and then portraying them as typically American.


How those Arabic countries use anti-West hatred to distract their people
from internal issues

The "hatred" of the West began when the British broke up the Ottoman
Empire and promised to 'liberate' Arabs from the Turkish rule; instead,
Arabs became subjects of the British and French colonial rule. Puppet
rulers were set up by Western Powers to derive maximum economic and
political benefits. Not only that, the British encouraged or allowed
Jewish emigration to Palestine, which resulted in Palestinian Muslims
and Christians loosing lands on which they have lived for thousands of
years. Hence, if another 'Anglo-Saxon' world power (for lack of a
better term) is now promising to liberate them and give them democracy,
they are suspicious. They want democracy but not at the hands of
Americans.

The terrorists see "Muslims" not only as a religious group but also as
a cultural group (a conglomeration of Arab/Asian nations which together
are part of the Muslim 'ummah). They are fighting for 'their'
people--Arabs and Asians who identify themselves as Muslims--not
religion per se. And that is why some of them are not even practicing
Muslims; they can drink alcohol, eat port, indulge in fornication
(things strictly forbidden in Islam), and still go out and fight like
hell--anything to get American/British/Israeli armies and their allies
get out of their countries. The United States and Britain want to
remain global powers, having armies and political influence, all over
the world; the terrorists want it end it from their region of the
world.

Now, obviously, the strategy that terrorists have chosen is wrong.
Instead of killing innocent civilians, they need to organize themselves
politically, overthrow their tyrannical regimes, and then simply vote
to ask the US and Britain to move their forces out. That's the proper
way. Having said that, the US and Great Britain need to realize that in
this day and age hegemony by one or two nations is unsustainable--the
age of empire building is over, even if justified by having so-called
allies--and it's time to build international institutions that can
provide world security and solve world problems.

Jim Yanik wrote:

No,if you read Memri.org, or other sources,you might know about how mosques
teach radical Wahabbi Islam and spread hate of non-Islamics.

According to some reports, "MEMRI is an invention of Colonel Yigal
Carmon, who spent 22 years in Israeli intelligence and later served as
counter-terrorism adviser to former Israeli premiers Yitzak Shamir and
Yitzak Rabin.)" Their job is to dig up dirt in Arab countries, so the
picture you get is very distorted. It would be the same as me
travelling all over the US filming crazies and fanatics, recording
quotes from talk-radio, and then portraying them as typically American.


How those Arabic countries use anti-West hatred to distract their people
from internal issues

The "hatred" of the West began when the British broke up the Ottoman
Empire and promised to 'liberate' Arabs from the Turkish rule; instead,
Arabs became subjects of the British and French colonial rule. Puppet
rulers were set up by Western Powers to derive maximum economic and
political benefits. Not only that, the British encouraged or allowed
Jewish emigration to Palestine, which resulted in Palestinian Muslims
and Christians loosing lands on which they have lived for thousands of
years. Hence, if another 'Anglo-Saxon' world power (for lack of a
better term) is now promising to liberate them and give them democracy,
they are suspicious. They want democracy but not at the hands of
Americans.

The terrorists see "Muslims" not only as a religious group but also as
a cultural group (a conglomeration of Arab/Asian nations which together
are part of the Muslim 'ummah). They are fighting for 'their'
people--Arabs and Asians who identify themselves as Muslims--not
religion per se. And that is why some of them are not even practicing
Muslims; they can drink alcohol, eat port, indulge in fornication
(things strictly forbidden in Islam), and still go out and fight like
hell--anything to get American/British/Israeli armies and their allies
get out of their countries. The United States and Britain want to
remain global powers, having armies and political influence, all over
the world; the terrorists want it end it from their region of the
world.

Now, obviously, the strategy that terrorists have chosen is wrong.
Instead of killing innocent civilians, they need to organize themselves
politically, overthrow their tyrannical regimes, and then simply vote
to ask the US and Britain to move their forces out. That's the proper
way. Having said that, the US and Great Britain need to realize that in
this day and age hegemony by one or two nations is unsustainable--the
age of empire building is over, even if justified by having so-called
allies--and it's time to build international institutions that can
provide world security and solve world problems.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Why is it practical, then, for pickup trucks to be built with either 4WD
or
2WD?

To clarify: 4WD or RWD. Look at how the drive trains are made.

Both are available in large quantities, or at least they were 2 days
ago when a friend of mine bought her Tundra, and also shopped Ford &
Chevy
dealers on the same street.

Are you saying it's MECHANICALLY impractical, or impractical in a
business
sense?

Mechanically impractical.

We're going in circles here. You can walk into a truck dealer anytime you
want and buy either a 2WD or 4WD truck. Forget FRONT wheel drive for the
moment. Why is it mechanically impractical to offer a choice in SUVs?

Uh, they DO offer a choice, actually. The loss leader price ones shown in
the ads are usually 2wd (RWD). South of the snow line, there will be many
2wd on the lot. Up north, almost all SUV buyers want 4wd for the couple
weeks a year that it makes a difference.

aem sends...

Doug Kanter wrote:
Zzzzzzzzzz.........

90% of SUV owners would be better off with FWD. Making the change for
millions of vehicles is very cost effective.

there are already FWD alternatives available. peeps want their big
ruffem tuffem truks. part of the reason is its easy to "lift" a
tahoe/suburban/whatever, to make them more imposing/annoying.

FDR wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

"FDR" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
6...

"FDR" wrote in
m:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.84...

"FDR" wrote in
news

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
70.86...

"Gonzo" wrote in
. rr.com:


"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
news:qkarc1drgkl0fjus3i8878fi5sn3kgbc82@4 ax.com...

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:04:10 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:


Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the
next attack so we can get your permission to go after the
source next time.


The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding
until 9-11.

Not true.
Bin Laden alone made several attacks on the US and US overseas
embassies and military well before 9-11. Remeember the FIRST WTC
bombing,when CLINTON
was President? Or the two Embassy bombings or the USS Cole
bombing?


A scan of the National Geographic back issues should give a
good idea good prevailing relationships that had existed
through time.

Oh,yeah,that's a -great- source for political data. (not!)



So what were the events that led to 9-11 that spawned the
current mess? Physically 9-11 did appear out of thin air.

No,it did not.Not considering the previous attacks,like
WTC-bombing #ONE.



But there
was a lot happening prior to that would cause a bunch of
technologically naive Arabs to learn enough to fly a plane and
crash them with deadly effect. You cannot defeat a billion of
angry muslims to prevent another attack. So you must work out
a political solution and neither going to war or building space
age defences is going to do it.

Going to war will turn Iraq to a democratic state,and already is
fostering democratic changes in other ME states.

But will it be a positive democratic state? If they elect an
asshole as their leader, then we are in just as bad a situation as
before. Eemocracy does not equal a positive result necssarily.
Hey, we have a Democracy here and look, it got us Bush as
President.

Thankfully.
Otherwise,we would have surrendered to Islamic fanaticism shortly
after Kerry was elected.And surrendered to the UN,too.

Instead we are just generating more Islamic fanaticism. Thanks
George!


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net



We are not generating anything that was not already there.

I see, Islamic fanatics are born, not created. It's a feature, like
dark hair or blue eyes. Well, you taught me something I never knew.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net



No,if you read Memri.org, or other sources,you might know about how
mosques
teach radical Wahabbi Islam and spread hate of non-Islamics.
How those Arabic countries use anti-West hatred to distract their people
from internal issues


Sounds like what we do; use war and hate to distract us from our problems.


--
Jim Yanik

Would you tell us why you liberals do that, or is that part of the Vast
LeftWing Conspiracy, and you can't talk about it, other than to deny it?




--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


So, do *not* tell me that when an engine has to turn another
100 lbs of metal that's doing nothing when not in 4WD,

Thats a lie.

So, the weight of the load being worked on has no effect on the energy
required?

"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
snip

The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers
choose fuel efficient cars is to let the price of fuel increase until
the
cost of the fuel has a real impact on consumer's car buying decisions.

That's the real problem, isn't it? People say "I don't mind the low gas
mileage on this thing I drive. I can afford the gas." In fact, they should
be saying "Indirectly, my son died in Iraq to protect the oil supply which
we wouldn't need (someday) if our dicks weren't so wrapped up in the kinds
of cars we drive".

Are you really equating people's choice of poor mileage vehicles
with the deaths of our soldiers?

How do you feel about those of us that choose to live in northen
climes and heat with fossil fuels?

Elsewhere in this thread, you justify your choice of vehicles by
citing your "need" to tow a boat. Must be an awfully nice boat. How
many soldiers lives do you think towing your boat is worth? Is there
the slightest chance at all that other people's needs _might_ be as
important to them as your needs are to you?

You're absolutely right. But, what's been stated in this discussion, both
explicitly and implicitly, is that peoples' needs are not being addressed by
the vehicles being offered. There are various reasons for this, all of which
have been mentioned.

Only Doug Kanter could take an off topic thread about London being
bombed and turn it into a endless flame about how to build cars. Face
it Doug, you don't know jack about either, so STFU.

"Gort" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

"FDR" wrote in
m:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. 86...

"FDR" wrote in
om:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
0.84...

"FDR" wrote in
news

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. 170.86...

"Gonzo" wrote in
.rr.com:


"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
news:qkarc1drgkl0fjus3i8878fi5sn3kgbc82@ 4ax.com...

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:04:10 GMT, "Gonzo"
wrote:


Well be sure to stick our asses in the air and wait for the
next attack so we can get your permission to go after the
source next time.


The US was free from problems with Muslims since its founding
until 9-11.

Not true.
Bin Laden alone made several attacks on the US and US overseas
embassies and military well before 9-11. Remeember the FIRST WTC
bombing,when CLINTON
was President? Or the two Embassy bombings or the USS Cole
bombing?


A scan of the National Geographic back issues should give a
good idea good prevailing relationships that had existed
through time.

Oh,yeah,that's a -great- source for political data. (not!)



So what were the events that led to 9-11 that spawned the
current mess? Physically 9-11 did appear out of thin air.

No,it did not.Not considering the previous attacks,like
WTC-bombing #ONE.



But there
was a lot happening prior to that would cause a bunch of
technologically naive Arabs to learn enough to fly a plane and
crash them with deadly effect. You cannot defeat a billion of
angry muslims to prevent another attack. So you must work out
a political solution and neither going to war or building space
age defences is going to do it.

Going to war will turn Iraq to a democratic state,and already is
fostering democratic changes in other ME states.

But will it be a positive democratic state? If they elect an
asshole as their leader, then we are in just as bad a situation as
before. Eemocracy does not equal a positive result necssarily.
Hey, we have a Democracy here and look, it got us Bush as
President.

Thankfully.
Otherwise,we would have surrendered to Islamic fanaticism shortly
after Kerry was elected.And surrendered to the UN,too.

Instead we are just generating more Islamic fanaticism. Thanks
George!


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net



We are not generating anything that was not already there.

I see, Islamic fanatics are born, not created. It's a feature, like
dark hair or blue eyes. Well, you taught me something I never knew.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net



No,if you read Memri.org, or other sources,you might know about how
mosques
teach radical Wahabbi Islam and spread hate of non-Islamics.
How those Arabic countries use anti-West hatred to distract their people
from internal issues


Sounds like what we do; use war and hate to distract us from our
problems.


--
Jim Yanik

Would you tell us why you liberals do that, or is that part of the Vast
LeftWing Conspiracy, and you can't talk about it, other than to deny it?

It was a conservative that started this war.





--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The founders stated their belief in that document. This does not mean that
you should justify bad choices by waving that document. If you do that,
you're no different than an Islamic extremist who justifies his violence
by
waving the Koran. The minute you stop thinking for yourself, you're
nothing
but a rock.

Who the hell do you think you are, to tell me that my choices are "bad"?

Weren't we talking about large numbers of consumers who buy an SUV because
they think it'll change their lives, cure baldness, etc? How did this become
all about you?

OK, since you want to be a literalist about it... who the hell do you think
you are, to tell other people that their choices are "bad"?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I guess it's impossible, then. Forgive me for suggesting it.

Nobody said it's impossible, just impractical. And what you *should* be
asking
forgiveness for is launching a rant "why don't they just..." without
having
thought it through first.

I haven't "thought it through"??? You're making just as much of an absolute
statement, with little or nothing to back it up. Or....do you have some
information you're withholding, just to create suspense?

You made a series of claims. Let's see you back them up. Starting with the
idea that reengineering RWD to FWD is a "simple change".

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .

Why is it practical, then, for pickup trucks to be built with either 4WD
or
2WD?

To clarify: 4WD or RWD. Look at how the drive trains are made.

Both are available in large quantities, or at least they were 2 days
ago when a friend of mine bought her Tundra, and also shopped Ford & Chevy
dealers on the same street.

Are you saying it's MECHANICALLY impractical, or impractical in a business
sense?

Mechanically impractical.

We're going in circles here. You can walk into a truck dealer anytime you
want and buy either a 2WD or 4WD truck.

Specifically you can buy either a REAR wheel drive, or FOUR wheel drive truck.

Forget FRONT wheel drive for the
moment. Why is it mechanically impractical to offer a choice in SUVs?

No, I'm *not* going to forget front wheel drive for the moment, because that's
what the discussion is about. It is mechanically impractical to offer the
choice of front wheel drive, or four wheel drive, on the same chassis. It is
*not* mechanically impractical to offer the choice between *rear* wheel drive
and four wheel drive.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

That settles that. Other than the 12 pack you've been working on all day,
you have NO valid source for YOUR guesses. At least I acknowledge that
I've
been guessing.

Now, if we could just get you to acknowledge that your whole argument is
worthless, being based (as you have admitted) on guesswork instead of
fact...

If you drive all day with your lights on, the engine works just a little bit
harder, and it affects gas mileage. So, running lights, which are now
standard on many cars, use a lower wattage bulb.

So, do *not* tell me that when an engine has to turn another 100 lbs of
metal that's doing nothing when not in 4WD, it's not going to have an
effect. I don't need to provide figures. This is intuitive, although you may
be lacking that skill, in which case I offer my condolences.

I'm not trying to tell you it will have no effect; I am trying to tell you,
however, that it won't have anywhere near the effect that you fantasize that
it will. If you're going to continue to maintain that your fantasy has some
relationship to reality, then, yes, you *do* need to provide figures.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The founders stated their belief in that document. This does not mean
that
you should justify bad choices by waving that document. If you do that,
you're no different than an Islamic extremist who justifies his violence
by
waving the Koran. The minute you stop thinking for yourself, you're
nothing
but a rock.

Who the hell do you think you are, to tell me that my choices are "bad"?

Weren't we talking about large numbers of consumers who buy an SUV because
they think it'll change their lives, cure baldness, etc? How did this
become
all about you?

OK, since you want to be a literalist about it... who the hell do you
think
you are, to tell other people that their choices are "bad"?

I don't know about where you live, but here, the used car lots are loaded
with 1-2 year old SUVs. Someone will come along here and say "Yeah, smarty -
their leases were up". Maybe. But, not all of them. I think quite a few
buyers are realizing they made lousy choices.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I didn't suggest a smaller engine. I suggested a number of other things,
like programming ***SOME*** models of SUVs to shift like a car instead
of
a
truck. Let me know if you don't understand this.

What I don't understand is why you think that changing the drive train
from
RWD/4WD to FWD - while keeping the *same* engine - is going to have some
mystical enormous effect on fuel mileage. It just doesn't work that way.

Who said "mystical"? I believe it's you that's been focused on what a
small
difference it would make. But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a
vehicle, and together they added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Changing the drive train from RWD to FWD is very, very far from being a
"simple change".

Zzzzzzzzzz.........

90% of SUV owners would be better off with FWD. Making the change for
millions of vehicles is very cost effective.

There you go again, trying to tell other people what's best for them. Tell you
what: you buy what you want, let other people buy what they want, and
everybody's happy. Except you, because they're not buying what you want them
to buy.

And... there you go again, making claims about cost-effectiveness without
having the first shred of evidence or knowledge on which to base them.
Reengineering, say, the Suburban, from RWD/4WD to FWD would be *enormously*
costly. That change would be "cost-effective" only if GM could recover the
costs of doing so; how do you propose they do that?



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I guess it's impossible, then. Forgive me for suggesting it.

Nobody said it's impossible, just impractical. And what you *should* be
asking
forgiveness for is launching a rant "why don't they just..." without
having
thought it through first.

I haven't "thought it through"??? You're making just as much of an
absolute
statement, with little or nothing to back it up. Or....do you have some
information you're withholding, just to create suspense?

You made a series of claims. Let's see you back them up. Starting with the
idea that reengineering RWD to FWD is a "simple change".

We've both made extreme statements for the sake of argument. You've said
certain changes were impractical. I say they're simple. When you say
"impractical", I interpret that to mean you think it's rocket science, but
when the manufacturers decide to make a change, it's NEVER the end of the
world. It's a decision they make, based on (hopefully) market forces.

So, you've mentioned that people buy SUVs because of perceived safety due to
the higher seating position. If the car makers wanted to, they could provide
that "feature", while removing some of the disadvantages of the vehicles.
Not impractical. They'll do it when they want to.

If you're interpreting my use of the word "simple" to mean that it's
something two engineers are going to start working on today and finish by
tomorrow, then you're being silly. You *know* that's not what I mean.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The founders stated their belief in that document. This does not mean
that
you should justify bad choices by waving that document. If you do that,
you're no different than an Islamic extremist who justifies his violence
by
waving the Koran. The minute you stop thinking for yourself, you're
nothing
but a rock.

Who the hell do you think you are, to tell me that my choices are "bad"?

Weren't we talking about large numbers of consumers who buy an SUV because
they think it'll change their lives, cure baldness, etc? How did this
become
all about you?

OK, since you want to be a literalist about it... who the hell do you
think
you are, to tell other people that their choices are "bad"?

I don't know about where you live, but here, the used car lots are loaded
with 1-2 year old SUVs. Someone will come along here and say "Yeah, smarty -
their leases were up". Maybe. But, not all of them. I think quite a few
buyers are realizing they made lousy choices.

I imagine that some of them decided that it made more sense to get something
with a little better fuel mileage. The key is, they made that decision
entirely on their own. Without any help from you, or any other busybodies.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

The founders stated their belief in that document. This does not mean
that
you should justify bad choices by waving that document. If you do
that,
you're no different than an Islamic extremist who justifies his
violence
by
waving the Koran. The minute you stop thinking for yourself, you're
nothing
but a rock.

Who the hell do you think you are, to tell me that my choices are
"bad"?

Weren't we talking about large numbers of consumers who buy an SUV
because
they think it'll change their lives, cure baldness, etc? How did this
become
all about you?

OK, since you want to be a literalist about it... who the hell do you
think
you are, to tell other people that their choices are "bad"?

I don't know about where you live, but here, the used car lots are loaded
with 1-2 year old SUVs. Someone will come along here and say "Yeah,
smarty -
their leases were up". Maybe. But, not all of them. I think quite a few
buyers are realizing they made lousy choices.

I imagine that some of them decided that it made more sense to get
something
with a little better fuel mileage. The key is, they made that decision
entirely on their own. Without any help from you, or any other busybodies.

If they had been better informed before the purchase, who would've been hurt
by that?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I guess it's impossible, then. Forgive me for suggesting it.

Nobody said it's impossible, just impractical. And what you *should* be
asking
forgiveness for is launching a rant "why don't they just..." without
having
thought it through first.

I haven't "thought it through"??? You're making just as much of an
absolute
statement, with little or nothing to back it up. Or....do you have some
information you're withholding, just to create suspense?

You made a series of claims. Let's see you back them up. Starting with the
idea that reengineering RWD to FWD is a "simple change".

We've both made extreme statements for the sake of argument.

Nonsense. I've made no extreme statements, for the sake of argument or
otherwise. You've made plenty.

You've said
certain changes were impractical. I say they're simple.

OK, fine - if it's so simple, please explain, in detail, how you'd go about
reengineering the Suburban from a 4WD/RWD platform to 4WD/FWD.

When you say
"impractical", I interpret that to mean you think it's rocket science,

I'm not responsible for your twisted interpretations of plain English. When I
say "impractical" I mean "impractical". If you need help understanding the
meaning of that term, you need look no farther than the nearest dictionary.

but
when the manufacturers decide to make a change, it's NEVER the end of the
world. It's a decision they make, based on (hopefully) market forces.

Has it yet occurred to you that the decision to make RWD SUVs is based on
market forces?

So, you've mentioned that people buy SUVs because of perceived safety due to
the higher seating position.

I *never* said *anything* about higher seating position, or about "perceived"
safety. I said they *are* safer because they're big and heavy.

If the car makers wanted to, they could provide
that "feature", while removing some of the disadvantages of the vehicles.
Not impractical. They'll do it when they want to.

And what "disadvantages" would you suggest they remove, while raising the
seating position? Hint: if you reduce the weight - which is the biggest reason
that SUVs have poor fuel mileage - while keeping the high seating position,
you make the vehicle much more likely to roll over. So be specific: what
disadvantages should they remove?

If you're interpreting my use of the word "simple" to mean that it's
something two engineers are going to start working on today and finish by
tomorrow, then you're being silly. You *know* that's not what I mean.

Just because you have your own definitions for various terms, doesn't mean
that the rest of us do too; some of us actually know how to use a dictionary,
and adhere to the commonly accepted meanings of words. You've already
explained your personal definition of "impractical"; perhaps you'd care to
share your personal definition of "simple" as well.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.