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

Bull****.

Yes, its not possible to buy a car that has the high seating that
comes with a SUV and the fuel economy seen with the best
diesel FWD cars, but thats just basic physics that no amount
of desperate wanking on your part will have any effect on.

And you engineering background is exactly......what? Changed a light bulb?

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obviously not.

And it leaves yours for dead anyway thanks.

Doug Kanter wrote:
Rod Speed wrote

Academic tho, because those who buy SUVs mostly
do that because they sit a lot higher in them and feel
safer because they do and they can afford the higher
purchase price and the inevitable higher fuel costs.
The clearly dont care about the fuel economy or they
wouldnt be buying SUVs in the first place, stupid.

Because you have all the market research at your fingertips, I will
trust your incredible judgement. Don't you feel powerful now? That's
the only reason you were involved in this discussion to start with.

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obviously not.

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

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?

I JUST said that the 100 lbs is a lie.

You plucked that out of your arse just
like you did the 20%, to hype things up.

What do the extra parts weigh?

Not 100 lbs with the SUVs being discussed.


Not counting zero, that leaves you with 99 guesses. How much to they weigh?

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

Bull****.

Yes, its not possible to buy a car that has the high seating that
comes with a SUV and the fuel economy seen with the best
diesel FWD cars, but thats just basic physics that no amount
of desperate wanking on your part will have any effect on.

And you engineering background is exactly......what? Changed a light
bulb?

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obviously not.

And it leaves yours for dead anyway thanks.


You're so sure of your comments about what's not possible. What is your
background? Oil change jockey?

wrote in message
ups.com...
"Interesting comment in that article: People don't like being bossed
around.
There are contradictions elsewhere in this thread. Jim....what's up
with the
contradictions? I suggest some advertising to get consumers to slow
down and
think before they buy an SUV, and that's "too much control". But,
marching
into another country on a lark - that's OK? "

Doug,. you don;t know squat about how to grow a lawn. You don't know
squat about freedom or terrorism. You don't know squat about economics
and supply and demand. And you surely have been proven to not know
squat about SUVs, why people but them, or how they even work. Yet, you
profess to have all kinds of whacko solutions to our problems. We
tried things your way. Remember Jimmy Carter, gas lines, excess
profits taxes to discourage oil production, inflation, high
unemployment, and America being held hostage by Muslim extremists?
That's what we get when guys like you run things


Remember Bill Clinton; economic prosperity for all, no deficits, no
quagmires. Compare that to the Republican chimp in office.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Tom Quackenbush wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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.

Bull****.

Yes, its not possible to buy a car that has the high seating that
comes with a SUV and the fuel economy seen with the best
diesel FWD cars, but thats just basic physics that no amount
of desperate wanking on your part will have any effect on.

And you engineering background is exactly......what? Changed a light
bulb?

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obviously not.

And it leaves yours for dead anyway thanks.

You're so sure of your comments about what's not possible. What is your
background? Oil change jockey?

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of your
predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obviously not.

And it leaves yours for dead anyway thanks.

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

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?

I JUST said that the 100 lbs is a lie.

You plucked that out of your arse just
like you did the 20%, to hype things up.

What do the extra parts weigh?

Not 100 lbs with the SUVs being discussed.


Not counting zero, that leaves you with 99 guesses. How much to they
weigh?

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obvious not.

Doug Kanter wrote:

They recover the costs the same way they do with ANY new model. If they
create a decent vehicle, it'll sell. If it's an oddball item, maybe they
have to work harder.
http://www.chevrolet.com/ssr/
(no idea how that's selling, by the way - never seen one on the road)

I've seen quite a few. Extraordinarily cute, like the PT Cruiser. Great
color, no wonder they charge extra. Costs too much, but what new car doesn't?

Companies invent or reinvent new car ideas all the time, and they either
sell, or they don't.

To me, this is funny looking, but it's selling:
http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/

You seem to be looking for complicated answers, when, in fact, the answer to
your question is simple: Good design, good advertising, good sales tactics.

That's also funny looking, but I think you can open the back so it acts like a
pickup in case you have to transport a refrigerator, which makes it a
reasonably adaptable vehicle. I talked with a guy at Harbor Freight who had
the Cadillac equivalent, and he said he loved it.

Most practical vehicle: 4-door pickup with a big engine. Haul anything and
anybody anywhere.

--
Cheers,
Bev
=============================================
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.

"FDR" wrote in
:


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


"Gort" wrote in message
...

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.


Not really,it began long before either Bush.
Probably goes all the way back to the 1200's.(Islam vs the West)


Heck,the FIRST WTC attack by Al-Queda came when Clinton was Prez.
Along with all those other attacks on US embassies and warships.

Nothing significant was done in response,and that is why we no longer
have a WTC.

What would you have liked done? Lob a nuke at the middle east?



That would not have solved the problem,as Al-Queda -was- operating from
Afghanistan,which Bush is solving.Other terrorism-supporting countries
require different tactics.(like Iraq or Iran) Iran is supporting the Iraqi
terrorists because Iraq becoming democratic and free presents problems for
Iran's theocratic rule.Same goes for Syria.

It's clear that Clinton's cruise missile attack was insufficient.
Heck,Clinton even turned down a chance to capture OBL.
(after several Al-Queda attacks on the US.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

That change would be "cost-effective" only if GM could recover the
costs of doing so; how do you propose they do that?

There are vehicles like Escalades all over the place. If GM can sell
those to people whose biggest load is $100 worth of groceries, 2 kids
and a soccer ball, they can sell anything, anytime. You remember what
P.T. Barnum said, right? :-)



So,what you are saying is that you want "someone" to decide what the
public
should be sold.(other than the public themselves)

Again,Soviet-style economics.

Not "sold". "Told". Anything is better than nothing.




So,you want the gov't to tell the salespeople how they must sell their
products?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

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

"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.




I don't understand what you're driving at here.
What difference is there in the way each vehicle shifts,and how is
that meaningful?

Certainly the mass of a vehicle matters in shifting "feel".

To get the best gas mileage, the rule of thumb is to get OUT of the
lower gears as quickly as possible. To use an extreme example, this is
why "jackrabbit starts" burn more gas - you're in first or second for
a longer period of time than if you started more gradually.

Based on my experience with 4 trucks (mine, and the 3 I test drove),
they're designed to remain in 1st or 2nd somewhat longer than a sedan
with similar size & motor. In other words, to get up to 55mph from an
entrance ramp, I know how quickly it happened with normal cars I've
driven, compared to the trucks. This is not a defect or a bad design,
mind you. It's logical for a vehicle that's hauling a lot of weight.
You need the torque of the lower gears to get started. Granted, you
need some more just because of the weight of the vehicle itself. But
still, I believe the difference is a bit excessive.

Someone will say that you can control this behavior with your foot (in
an automatic), and that's true. But, if you do, there are plenty of
situations where you're going to get onto the highway doing 43 mph
like an old fart, rather than blending in safely at the prevailing
speed. In other words, in order to achieve the same acceleration you
had with the sedan, you HAVE to let the truck stay longer in the lower
gears.

At the other end of the spectrum, some trucks will downshift out of
overdrive when you try make even a slight upward speed adjustment.
They've certainly got big enough engines to not need to do this, but
again, the assumption in the design is that you're hauling something
heavy, so you need the extra kick.

The solution already exists: Buttons to change the shifting pattern.
Years ago, some Hondas had (and may still have) a button that I think
they labeled "Sport". My truck has a button that changes the pattern
to one that makes for easier towing on hills, providing even higher
shift points than it already has. Why not provide all SUVs with a
button that toggles between "shift like a car" and "shift like you're
hauling bricks and a boat". Make one mode or the other the default,
and make that easily programmable by the consumer. Educate them at
delivery. You know as well as I do that there are people who never
notice or use features. Have the salesperson ask them one question,
ask them if they have a preference, and if not, send the car out of
the showroom set to "Car".




Such a feature costs money to design and install.
The tranny controller must have the extra memory space for the additional
programming,and two programs must be created.Then each program has to fit
the government's EPA testing.

TANSTAAFL.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"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
.. .
"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.

Makes sense to me.
Look at what we freely did for the tsunami countries,most of which
are MOSLEM,and their peoples supposedly hate us.There wasn't much to
"gain" there.

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.




Maybe Bush wanted the *UN* to step up and act for those
Africans,because some people accuse him of wanting to always act
unilaterally. WHY hasn't the UN done anything? They won't,but the US
should?

On one hand,some folks want the US to not be the World's
policeman(and charity),and then they DO want the US to be so.

THAT is "inconsistent".

So, you wonder why so many wanted to spit in Bush's face when he first
said "We're going to Iraq to help the people"??? I know two guys who
consider themselves EXTREMELY conservative. If they could give Rush
Limbaugh a blowjob every day, they'd do it. But, they both laughed
when Bush began compiling his list of reasons. They both said
"Bull**** - of course it's the oil!"




Who cares if you know "two guys"?

And there's was more than one reason Bush cited for intervening in Iraq.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:


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

"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.




He's still your President,no matter how you feel about him
personally. And no embarassment,either. CLINTON was an embarrassment.

A person's rank or place in the world means nothing to me. They have
to earn my respect. He might be an OK neighbor, but certainly not a
president. His dad, on the other hand, was someone I'd listen to. I
wish I knew what went wrong.


We'd be in real trouble if any Democrat was in office.

There's really very little difference.




Then you have no business voting,you're woefully uninformed.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"FDR" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...
"Interesting comment in that article: People don't like being bossed
around.
There are contradictions elsewhere in this thread. Jim....what's up
with the
contradictions? I suggest some advertising to get consumers to slow
down and
think before they buy an SUV, and that's "too much control". But,
marching
into another country on a lark - that's OK? "

Doug,. you don;t know squat about how to grow a lawn. You don't know
squat about freedom or terrorism. You don't know squat about economics
and supply and demand. And you surely have been proven to not know
squat about SUVs, why people but them, or how they even work. Yet, you
profess to have all kinds of whacko solutions to our problems. We
tried things your way. Remember Jimmy Carter, gas lines, excess
profits taxes to discourage oil production, inflation, high
unemployment, and America being held hostage by Muslim extremists?
That's what we get when guys like you run things


Remember Bill Clinton; economic prosperity for all, no deficits, no
quagmires. Compare that to the Republican chimp in office.




Bill Clinton didn't achieve ANY of -his- programs.
He simply took credit for what previous Republican administrations
achieved.(Reagan,Bush43)
The economy tanked very shortly after Bush became President,well before he
started anything.Clearly a result of Clinton's 8 years of "management".

I note that Iran quickly released the US Embassy hostages when Reagan
became President;the Iranians had Carter over a barrel.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

To get the best gas mileage, the rule of thumb is to get OUT of the lower
gears as quickly as possible. To use an extreme example, this is why
"jackrabbit starts" burn more gas - you're in first or second for a longer
period of time than if you started more gradually.

Wrong. The main reason jackrabbit starts burn more gas is that engines use
more fuel at full throttle than at partial throttle.

--
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:

If you can let go of the "all or nothing" way of thinking, then
probability
answers your question.

I'm questioning your assumption that their purchase of an SUV means, ipso
facto, that they must have been poorly informed. Justify that assumption.

Sorry. I don't have stats, other than looking out my car window just like
you can. Would you say it's a fair guess that there are 10 times more SUVs
on the road today than 20 years ago? If not, pick a number. Look around the
supermarket parking lot.

Beside the point. Answer the question: why do you assume that the buyers of
SUVs must have been poorly informed before their purchase?

--
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:

And you engineering background is exactly......what? Changed a light bulb?

ROTFLMAO again!!! You don't have even that much.

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

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

In article , "FDR" wrote:

Remember Bill Clinton; economic prosperity for all

Yeah, right, tell that to the people who lost their shirts in the stock market
crash in March 2000.

no deficits,

Also not true. The only way Clinton managed a "surplus" was by playing
accounting games with the Social Security "trust fund".

no quagmires

Somalia... Bosnia... yep, no quagmires under Clinton...

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

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

In article , Jim Yanik . wrote:

The economy tanked very shortly after Bush became President,well before he
started anything.Clearly a result of Clinton's 8 years of "management".

Not correct - the economy began tanking in March 2000, _ten_months_before_
Bush became President.

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

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

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

FDR wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
3...


"FDR" wrote in
:



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


"FDR" wrote in
. com:



"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
70.84...


"FDR" wrote in
news


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


"Gonzo" wrote in
s.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.



Oh, I should have known you use the lie-beral's favorite dodge...BLAME
EVERYTHING ON THE OTHER GUY!




--
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.

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

FDR wrote:

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. 83...


"FDR" wrote in
m:



"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
0.86...


"FDR" wrote in
.com:



"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. 170.84...


"FDR" wrote in
news


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
0.170.86...


"Gonzo" wrote in
as.rr.com:



"PaPaPeng" wrote in message
news:qkarc1drgkl0fjus3i8878fi5sn3kgbc8 ...


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.



Oh, I should have known you use the lie-beral's favorite dodge...BLAME
EVERYTHING ON THE OTHER GUY!

You're right. President Gore and President Kerry 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.

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


wrote in message
ups.com...
"Interesting comment in that article: People don't like being bossed
around.
There are contradictions elsewhere in this thread. Jim....what's up
with the
contradictions? I suggest some advertising to get consumers to slow
down and
think before they buy an SUV, and that's "too much control". But,
marching
into another country on a lark - that's OK? "

Doug,. you don;t know squat about how to grow a lawn. You don't know
squat about freedom or terrorism. You don't know squat about economics
and supply and demand. And you surely have been proven to not know
squat about SUVs, why people but them, or how they even work. Yet, you
profess to have all kinds of whacko solutions to our problems. We
tried things your way. Remember Jimmy Carter, gas lines, excess
profits taxes to discourage oil production, inflation, high
unemployment, and America being held hostage by Muslim extremists?
That's what we get when guys like you run things


Remember Bill Clinton; economic prosperity for all, no deficits, no
quagmires. Compare that to the Republican chimp in office.




Bill Clinton didn't achieve ANY of -his- programs.
He simply took credit for what previous Republican administrations
achieved.(Reagan,Bush43)
The economy tanked very shortly after Bush became President,well before he
started anything.Clearly a result of Clinton's 8 years of "management".

Using that logic, we should thank Jimmy Carter for bringing the prosperity
of the Reagan years. Reagan did nothing but take credit for Carter's
policies that klicked in after he left office.

There, happy now?


I note that Iran quickly released the US Embassy hostages when Reagan
became President;the Iranians had Carter over a barrel.

Actually, using your logic, it was Carter's hard work that Reagan took
credit for.

There, happy now?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

Remember Bill Clinton; economic prosperity for all

Yeah, right, tell that to the people who lost their shirts in the stock
market
crash in March 2000.

Ok, using your lkogic we should also blame Reagan for the crash of 1987.
There, happy now?


no deficits,

Also not true. The only way Clinton managed a "surplus" was by playing
accounting games with the Social Security "trust fund".

Well ****, Bush has been doing that and where's the surplus?


no quagmires

Somalia... Bosnia... yep, no quagmires under Clinton...

We're still in Somalia?


Face it, Republicans to this day are still jealous that a Democrat could be
more fiscally conservative than a Republican.


--
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
. ..


I'm questioning your assumption that their purchase of an SUV means,
ipso
facto, that they must have been poorly informed. Justify that
assumption.

Sorry. I don't have stats, other than looking out my car window just like
you can. Would you say it's a fair guess that there are 10 times more SUVs
on the road today than 20 years ago? If not, pick a number. Look around
the
supermarket parking lot.

Beside the point. Answer the question: why do you assume that the buyers
of
SUVs must have been poorly informed before their purchase?

We're going around in circles again, so this is the last time: I assume they
made bad decisions because I see late model SUVs lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. I realize there are a few other possible reasons for this,
but this is my theory and I'm sticking with it.

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

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?

I JUST said that the 100 lbs is a lie.

You plucked that out of your arse just
like you did the 20%, to hype things up.

What do the extra parts weigh?

Not 100 lbs with the SUVs being discussed.


Not counting zero, that leaves you with 99 guesses. How much to they
weigh?

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort, Kanter.

Obvious not.

Me??? You've disagreed vehemently with 100 lbs, which means you must have a
powerful opinion involving some other theoretical number. Apparently, you
can no longer support your little theory.

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


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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

That change would be "cost-effective" only if GM could recover the
costs of doing so; how do you propose they do that?

There are vehicles like Escalades all over the place. If GM can sell
those to people whose biggest load is $100 worth of groceries, 2 kids
and a soccer ball, they can sell anything, anytime. You remember what
P.T. Barnum said, right? :-)



So,what you are saying is that you want "someone" to decide what the
public
should be sold.(other than the public themselves)

Again,Soviet-style economics.

Not "sold". "Told". Anything is better than nothing.




So,you want the gov't to tell the salespeople how they must sell their
products?

Let's put it this way:

If a really good salesperson did a fabulous job of asking you questions, and
made sure you understand EXACTLY what you were getting into, you'd probably
walk away and say (maybe to your wife) "Wow....I wish they were all that
good".

The government is not going to create good salespeople, but I see nothing
wrong with the government asking car makers (or dealers, depending on who's
responsible for local training) to include a bit more in the qualification
process, other than "Duh...do youse have a trade-in and how's you gonna pay
for dis?"

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

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

"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.




I don't understand what you're driving at here.
What difference is there in the way each vehicle shifts,and how is
that meaningful?

Certainly the mass of a vehicle matters in shifting "feel".

To get the best gas mileage, the rule of thumb is to get OUT of the
lower gears as quickly as possible. To use an extreme example, this is
why "jackrabbit starts" burn more gas - you're in first or second for
a longer period of time than if you started more gradually.

Based on my experience with 4 trucks (mine, and the 3 I test drove),
they're designed to remain in 1st or 2nd somewhat longer than a sedan
with similar size & motor. In other words, to get up to 55mph from an
entrance ramp, I know how quickly it happened with normal cars I've
driven, compared to the trucks. This is not a defect or a bad design,
mind you. It's logical for a vehicle that's hauling a lot of weight.
You need the torque of the lower gears to get started. Granted, you
need some more just because of the weight of the vehicle itself. But
still, I believe the difference is a bit excessive.

Someone will say that you can control this behavior with your foot (in
an automatic), and that's true. But, if you do, there are plenty of
situations where you're going to get onto the highway doing 43 mph
like an old fart, rather than blending in safely at the prevailing
speed. In other words, in order to achieve the same acceleration you
had with the sedan, you HAVE to let the truck stay longer in the lower
gears.

At the other end of the spectrum, some trucks will downshift out of
overdrive when you try make even a slight upward speed adjustment.
They've certainly got big enough engines to not need to do this, but
again, the assumption in the design is that you're hauling something
heavy, so you need the extra kick.

The solution already exists: Buttons to change the shifting pattern.
Years ago, some Hondas had (and may still have) a button that I think
they labeled "Sport". My truck has a button that changes the pattern
to one that makes for easier towing on hills, providing even higher
shift points than it already has. Why not provide all SUVs with a
button that toggles between "shift like a car" and "shift like you're
hauling bricks and a boat". Make one mode or the other the default,
and make that easily programmable by the consumer. Educate them at
delivery. You know as well as I do that there are people who never
notice or use features. Have the salesperson ask them one question,
ask them if they have a preference, and if not, send the car out of
the showroom set to "Car".




Such a feature costs money to design and install.
The tranny controller must have the extra memory space for the additional
programming,and two programs must be created.Then each program has to fit
the government's EPA testing.

Now you're being goofy. Car makers fiddle with features every year. You
expect it to not cost money???

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

To get the best gas mileage, the rule of thumb is to get OUT of the lower
gears as quickly as possible. To use an extreme example, this is why
"jackrabbit starts" burn more gas - you're in first or second for a longer
period of time than if you started more gradually.

Wrong. The main reason jackrabbit starts burn more gas is that engines use
more fuel at full throttle than at partial throttle.

Ummm.....correct. It's at full throttle (or just a lot more throttle)
because you (stick shift) or the car (automatic) is keeping the thing in a
lower gear. We're both describing aspects of the same function, at the same
moment in time.

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

So, you wonder why so many wanted to spit in Bush's face when he first
said "We're going to Iraq to help the people"??? I know two guys who
consider themselves EXTREMELY conservative. If they could give Rush
Limbaugh a blowjob every day, they'd do it. But, they both laughed
when Bush began compiling his list of reasons. They both said
"Bull**** - of course it's the oil!"




Who cares if you know "two guys"?

And there's was more than one reason Bush cited for intervening in Iraq.

The point is that actual conservatives (as opposed to little robots) know
Bush's true reasons. If you could get five minutes in a room with the man
who is ACTUALLY making policy, Karl Rove, he'd tell you why we're in Iraq,
and if you asked him about the initial list of stupid reasons, he'd probably
laugh in your face.

How do you think it would've gone over with the public if your president had
simply said "We're invading Iraq because we believe it's an integral part of
protecting the oil we get from Saudi Arabia."?

Hmmm? Whattya think?

"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
:




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.




He's still your President,no matter how you feel about him
personally. And no embarassment,either. CLINTON was an embarrassment.

A person's rank or place in the world means nothing to me. They have
to earn my respect. He might be an OK neighbor, but certainly not a
president. His dad, on the other hand, was someone I'd listen to. I
wish I knew what went wrong.


We'd be in real trouble if any Democrat was in office.

There's really very little difference.




Then you have no business voting,you're woefully uninformed.

We shall see.

In article , "FDR" wrote:

You're right. President Gore and President Kerry started this war.

You missed the point.

Saddam started it. In 1990.

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

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

In article , "FDR" wrote:

Face it, Republicans to this day are still jealous that a Democrat could be
more fiscally conservative than a Republican.

Nonsense. None of Clinton's economic policies were ever implemented, thanks to
a Congress that had much more wisdom than he had.

--
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
...


I'm questioning your assumption that their purchase of an SUV means,
ipso
facto, that they must have been poorly informed. Justify that
assumption.

Sorry. I don't have stats, other than looking out my car window just like
you can. Would you say it's a fair guess that there are 10 times more SUVs
on the road today than 20 years ago? If not, pick a number. Look around
the
supermarket parking lot.

Beside the point. Answer the question: why do you assume that the buyers
of
SUVs must have been poorly informed before their purchase?

We're going around in circles again, so this is the last time: I assume they
made bad decisions because I see late model SUVs lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. I realize there are a few other possible reasons for this,
but this is my theory and I'm sticking with it.

Maybe you ought to explore some of those other possible reasons. Here's one:
lease expires, get a brand-new SUV, two-year-old one winds up on the used lot.

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


I'm questioning your assumption that their purchase of an SUV means,
ipso
facto, that they must have been poorly informed. Justify that
assumption.

Sorry. I don't have stats, other than looking out my car window just like
you can. Would you say it's a fair guess that there are 10 times more SUVs
on the road today than 20 years ago? If not, pick a number. Look around
the
supermarket parking lot.

Beside the point. Answer the question: why do you assume that the buyers
of
SUVs must have been poorly informed before their purchase?

We're going around in circles again, so this is the last time: I assume they
made bad decisions because I see late model SUVs lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. I realize there are a few other possible reasons for this,
but this is my theory and I'm sticking with it.

Maybe you ought to explore some of those other possible reasons. Here's one:
lease expires, get a brand-new SUV, two-year-old one winds up on the used lot.
....

Another one...can you say "program" cars?

Or, rental company purchases by the lot for resale?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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

To get the best gas mileage, the rule of thumb is to get OUT of the lower
gears as quickly as possible. To use an extreme example, this is why
"jackrabbit starts" burn more gas - you're in first or second for a longer
period of time than if you started more gradually.

Wrong. The main reason jackrabbit starts burn more gas is that engines use
more fuel at full throttle than at partial throttle.

Ummm.....correct. It's at full throttle (or just a lot more throttle)
because you (stick shift) or the car (automatic) is keeping the thing in a
lower gear. We're both describing aspects of the same function, at the same
moment in time.

No, we are *not* describing aspects of the same function. You completely
misunderstand how an automobile works. The engine is at full throttle during a
jackrabbit start because the driver has pressed the accelerator pedal to the
floor. The transmission being in lower gear does not in any way cause the
engine to be at full throttle -- it's exactly the other way around. Because
the engine is at full throttle, the transmission remains in a lower gear - but
the principal waste of gas is due to full-throttle operation, not the gear
selection.

--
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:

How do you think it would've gone over with the public if your president had
simply said "We're invading Iraq because we believe it's an integral part of
protecting the oil we get from Saudi Arabia."?

Hmmm? Whattya think?

I think that you don't know any more about that, than you do about how
automobiles work. Consider how little of the oil that we use actually comes
from Saudi Arabia...

--
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 , "FDR"
wrote:

You're right. President Gore and President Kerry started this war.

You missed the point.

Saddam started it. In 1990.

I don't recall him starting a war against us. History books show it was
against Kuwait.


--
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 , "FDR"
wrote:

Face it, Republicans to this day are still jealous that a Democrat could
be
more fiscally conservative than a Republican.

Nonsense. None of Clinton's economic policies were ever implemented,
thanks to
a Congress that had much more wisdom than he had.

Rush tell you that?


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

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

In article , "FDR" wrote:

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

Face it, Republicans to this day are still jealous that a Democrat could
be
more fiscally conservative than a Republican.

Nonsense. None of Clinton's economic policies were ever implemented,
thanks to
a Congress that had much more wisdom than he had.

Rush tell you that?

Nope. I just happened to be awake, and paying attention, during that time.

--
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
m...


I'm questioning your assumption that their purchase of an SUV means,
ipso
facto, that they must have been poorly informed. Justify that
assumption.

Sorry. I don't have stats, other than looking out my car window just
like
you can. Would you say it's a fair guess that there are 10 times more
SUVs
on the road today than 20 years ago? If not, pick a number. Look around
the
supermarket parking lot.

Beside the point. Answer the question: why do you assume that the buyers
of
SUVs must have been poorly informed before their purchase?

We're going around in circles again, so this is the last time: I assume
they
made bad decisions because I see late model SUVs lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. I realize there are a few other possible reasons for this,
but this is my theory and I'm sticking with it.

Maybe you ought to explore some of those other possible reasons. Here's
one:
lease expires, get a brand-new SUV, two-year-old one winds up on the used
lot.

Some, but certainly not all.