In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

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

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they
were safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving
nothing but SUVs.


You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at high
speeds spring to mind...

i bet if you asked the cops themselves, theyd tell you theyd rather throw
around a crown vic during a high speed chase than an expedition.

I think you'd get that same response from ANYONE with more awareness than
your average hammer. :-)

Yet you were not aware that there might be any reasons, other than crash
safety, why the cops might rather have something other than an SUV...

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

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

Buck Turgidson wrote:

Don't confuse the message and the medium. I drive a 1985 Toyota, don't
even have a garage, and I've never even flown 1st class (although I was
bumped to business class on a trip to South America).

What exactly do conservatives conserve?




The status quo

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100 people and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for your next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?", there would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd actually say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What I *am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice on their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in used car
lots is some indication of this idea.

You whiffed on the point entirely...

I commented only on your comment establishment of US via armed
revolution as being the implementation of a concept which was expressed
in the Declaration...

You are so single-minded you jumped back into the senseless "beat up on
the SUV owner as the scourge of mankind" bandwagon. As you
inadvertently note, market forces will correct if you just let them do
so.....

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is not),
the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was
detonated
in a restaurant.

In the US specifically, retail prices are being controlled by a lack of
increased refining capacity which makes any real or threatened
perturbation to daily supply subject to market speculation. If you
could get your friends to support siting such facilities, we'd have a
whole lot less volatility initially followed by a drop in price at the
pump...

Speculation. Exactly. Definition: A bunch of suits who also bet on hog
bellies and orange juice.

Again you miss the essential point--if there were increased refining
capacity, there would be no significant "fear factor" to spur the short
term speculation as reserves would be ample and short term interruptions
from such things as Dennis would be essentially immaterial.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some reason. In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some people
if you suggest this. :-)

You display a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy underlying
the birth of the United States. It appears that you have never read, or failed
to understand, the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that governments
are instituted among men to secure these rights; that when any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people
to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government..."

In other words: rights *do* come from God. The government is there to protect
the rights that God gave us. If the government is not doing its job, it's our
right to get rid of it, and replace it with something that will.

Freedom didn't come from a gun; freedom comes from God. But if you want to
*keep* your freedom, it sure helps to have guns. That's how the colonists got
rid of an unsuitable government.

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

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

Rod Speed wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote

Buck Turgidson wrote


Imagine the 300 billion (probably end up close to 600 billion) used for
alternative energy research instead of spending it on the war, Halliburton,
etc. Had we spent the money there, we wouldn't need these sultans, emirs,
ayatollahs, etc.


The problem is that much of the alternative energy options are easy for the
individual to use, but difficult for the mega corps to control distribution.
There is no money in it for them if you or I can produce our own power, heat &
fuel.


Mindless conspiracy theory.

The reality is that it just aint practical to 'produce our own power, heat
& fuel' and that amount of money wouldnt do anything useful on that.

Even say replacing all S facing roofs with solar cells wouldnt do it.



Depends on your usage of energy, insulation etc. We built a solar
powered house totally off the grid in Canada with only eight 100 watt
panels and a small back up generator. The fuel costs averaged less than
$10.00 per month from November to March. We calculated adding four to
more panels would have made the generator an expensive door stop.

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc.
You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a
period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed
at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about
vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need
to
get
with a good psychologist.

Well, I do have a problem w/ a lot of them...every time I see them I
think mostly of the waste of my tax money...

Me too,....

Then why are you advocating for it?

Not the government's job imo...

Because there are some things businesses will never do, especially when
they're loaded with product they can't get rid of. I know this will never
happen, though. Imagine the results of public service commercials that told
consumers to reconsider their choice of a pig vehicle. Legislators would
immediately be cut off from the perks they expect from corporate sponsors.
Golf courses would suffer terribly.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
. ..

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical?

No, I'm saying that offering a front-drive and a 4WD version of the same thing
is impractical from the standpoint of building the vehicle.

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

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

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100 people
and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for your
next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?", there
would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd actually say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What I
*am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice on
their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in used car
lots is some indication of this idea.

You whiffed on the point entirely...

I commented only on your comment establishment of US via armed
revolution as being the implementation of a concept which was expressed
in the Declaration...

Oh. OK. Well....I filter out the word "god" from all government related
documents because I think it's nonsense to blend the two. So, I have a
really hard time with someone who says it's his god-given right to do things
that are unpatriotic.

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.

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

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

barbie gee wrote:



On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, max wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is right
for someone else? Once you start that process, then we should go take
a look at everything people own and do. Is that ski trip to Colorado
necessary? Or should one drive to a ski resort that's closer? How
about driving the family to the beach every weekend in the summer?
Maybe we should close places like Disneyland, since not only does it
use a lot of unnecessary energy,


And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use
less gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to close
disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"


we call that kind of sloppy thinking "the slippery slope" train of thought.
"First they restrict our freedom to waste, next thing ya know we'll all
be in a concentration camp!"

ridiculous.




Agreed, the best one can do is lead by example and laugh at the rest.
It's a matter of personal choice, for me it's a matter of keeping my
money rather than supporting golden parachutes for ceo's

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

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

"Buck Turgidson" wrote in message
...


Kanter's right - we shouldn't touch the safety issue. That's a whole
'nother can of worms....


Not to send this discussion off into yet another direction, but if they
were safer, then agencies like the NY State Police would be driving
nothing but SUVs.


You don't suppose there might be other considerations more important to
a
police agency than crash safety? Rapid acceleration and stability at
high
speeds spring to mind...

i bet if you asked the cops themselves, theyd tell you theyd rather
throw
around a crown vic during a high speed chase than an expedition.

I think you'd get that same response from ANYONE with more awareness than
your average hammer. :-)

Yet you were not aware that there might be any reasons, other than crash
safety, why the cops might rather have something other than an SUV...

Actually, I'm aware of ALL the reasons. I've driven a modified Crown Vic,
and I now drive what is essentially an SUV. Because I am the best
non-professional driver on the planet, I have fully absorbed even the most
minute differences between the two categories of vehicles.

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc.
You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a
period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed
at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about
vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need
to
get
with a good psychologist.

Well, I do have a problem w/ a lot of them...every time I see them I
think mostly of the waste of my tax money...

Me too,....

Then why are you advocating for it?

Not the government's job imo...

Because there are some things businesses will never do, especially when
they're loaded with product they can't get rid of. I know this will never
happen, though. Imagine the results of public service commercials that told
consumers to reconsider their choice of a pig vehicle. Legislators would
immediately be cut off from the perks they expect from corporate sponsors.
Golf courses would suffer terribly.

If "they're loaded with product they can't get rid of" they will quit
making that product...that's the market and not government's job.

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100 people
and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for your
next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?", there
would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd actually say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What I
*am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice on
their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in used car
lots is some indication of this idea.

You whiffed on the point entirely...

I commented only on your comment establishment of US via armed
revolution as being the implementation of a concept which was expressed
in the Declaration...

Oh. OK. Well....I filter out the word "god" from all government related
documents because I think it's nonsense to blend the two. So, I have a
really hard time with someone who says it's his god-given right to do things
that are unpatriotic.

Well, you might read the Declaration of Independence (I'd say "again",
but it's clear you must not have ever really read it)....

What is "patriotic" in the sense of most of your complaints is, in our
society, mostly in the eye of the beholder, not some external moralist
such as yourself.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

Actually, I'm aware of ALL the reasons.

I'm sure that explains your silly statement that if SUVs were really safer,
then the cops would be driving those instead.

I've driven a modified Crown Vic,
and I now drive what is essentially an SUV. Because I am the best
non-professional driver on the planet, I have fully absorbed even the most
minute differences between the two categories of vehicles.

Uh-huh. And yet it took you a while to figure out that 4WD won't keep you out
of a ditch... A number of years ago, a study conducted by AAA showed that over
80% of drivers think that they are better than average.

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

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

Ford Prefect wrote:

Buck Turgidson wrote:

Don't confuse the message and the medium. I drive a 1985 Toyota, don't
even have a garage, and I've never even flown 1st class (although I was
bumped to business class on a trip to South America).

What exactly do conservatives conserve?


The status quo


There's a lot to be said for that...

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

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns.
Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with
some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the
implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100
people
and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for your
next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?", there
would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd actually
say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some
who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or
SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What
I
*am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice on
their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in used
car
lots is some indication of this idea.

You whiffed on the point entirely...

I commented only on your comment establishment of US via armed
revolution as being the implementation of a concept which was expressed
in the Declaration...

Oh. OK. Well....I filter out the word "god" from all government related
documents because I think it's nonsense to blend the two. So, I have a
really hard time with someone who says it's his god-given right to do
things
that are unpatriotic.

Well, you might read the Declaration of Independence (I'd say "again",
but it's clear you must not have ever really read it)....

What is "patriotic" in the sense of most of your complaints is, in our
society, mostly in the eye of the beholder, not some external moralist
such as yourself.

So, in other words, you'd NEVER be prepared to make certain sacrifices for
your country, as our parents and grandparents did during WWII, for example?

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

My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some reason. In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns. Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

You display a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy underlying
the birth of the United States. It appears that you have never read, or
failed
to understand, the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
that
they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among
these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that
governments
are instituted among men to secure these rights; that when any form of
government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people
to alter or abolish it and to institute a new government..."

In other words: rights *do* come from God. The government is there to
protect
the rights that God gave us. If the government is not doing its job, it's
our
right to get rid of it, and replace it with something that will.

Freedom didn't come from a gun; freedom comes from God. But if you want to
*keep* your freedom, it sure helps to have guns. That's how the colonists
got
rid of an unsuitable government.

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.

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

Actually, I'm aware of ALL the reasons.

I'm sure that explains your silly statement that if SUVs were really
safer,
then the cops would be driving those instead.

Go back and interpret again. If you're in a high speed chase, which
introduces a higher likelihood of colliding with something (due simply to
the need to make faster decisions), would you rather be in a bulkier car
that MIGHT afford you more protection, or a car that's much less likely to
roll over? I'd choose "B". We're talking about two different aspects of
safety here.



I've driven a modified Crown Vic,
and I now drive what is essentially an SUV. Because I am the best
non-professional driver on the planet, I have fully absorbed even the most
minute differences between the two categories of vehicles.

Uh-huh. And yet it took you a while to figure out that 4WD won't keep you
out
of a ditch... A number of years ago, a study conducted by AAA showed that
over
80% of drivers think that they are better than average.

Without knowing a LOT more about the survey population, that statistic is
meaningless.

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

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical?

No, I'm saying that offering a front-drive and a 4WD version of the same
thing
is impractical from the standpoint of building the vehicle.

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
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? Would that be
worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing so? Sure - maybe
eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires which make sense for how the
owner will ACTUALLY use the car. And, reprogram the transmission so it
shifts according to a pattern that matches how the car is ACTUALLY used. If
you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

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

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

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is not),
the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes
within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was
detonated
in a restaurant.

In the US specifically, retail prices are being controlled by a lack of
increased refining capacity which makes any real or threatened
perturbation to daily supply subject to market speculation. If you
could get your friends to support siting such facilities, we'd have a
whole lot less volatility initially followed by a drop in price at the
pump...

Speculation. Exactly. Definition: A bunch of suits who also bet on hog
bellies and orange juice.

Again you miss the essential point--if there were increased refining
capacity, there would be no significant "fear factor" to spur the short
term speculation as reserves would be ample and short term interruptions
from such things as Dennis would be essentially immaterial.

I know what you're saying, but speculators only make money when prices move.
Ever notice that if Wal Mart announces less then fabulous earnings, Sears
stock goes down?

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns.
Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with
some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the
implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100
people
and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for your
next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?", there
would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd actually
say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some
who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or
SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want. What
I
*am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice on
their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in used
car
lots is some indication of this idea.

You whiffed on the point entirely...

I commented only on your comment establishment of US via armed
revolution as being the implementation of a concept which was expressed
in the Declaration...

Oh. OK. Well....I filter out the word "god" from all government related
documents because I think it's nonsense to blend the two. So, I have a
really hard time with someone who says it's his god-given right to do
things
that are unpatriotic.

Well, you might read the Declaration of Independence (I'd say "again",
but it's clear you must not have ever really read it)....

What is "patriotic" in the sense of most of your complaints is, in our
society, mostly in the eye of the beholder, not some external moralist
such as yourself.

So, in other words, you'd NEVER be prepared to make certain sacrifices for
your country, as our parents and grandparents did during WWII, for example?

No, I'm perfectly prepared...I'm only opposed those who think/spout
PC'ese

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


Maybe if our commander in chief wasn't constantly hurting himslef on bikes
and pretzels, could speak like somebody with a Yale education and wasn't
trying to run this country into the ground by spending the USA credit card
all the time, he'd ahve more respect.



David Letterman sometimes runs a short feature called "George Bush -
Wordsmith" Actual video clips of George, with absolutely NO comments added.
Recent quote:

"Some of these people have actually been trained to disassemble. That means
to not tell the truth".

The show overlaid text of the definition of "disassemble", just in case
anyone wasn't sure.



Actually, that word is correct. Disassemble is to take apart, and some
sure do that with the truth.



--
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.

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a 2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical?

No, I'm saying that offering a front-drive and a 4WD version of the same
thing
is impractical from the standpoint of building the vehicle.

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

Yes.

A 4WD/2WD is still rear drive w/ longitudinal engine mount. FWD is
transverse.

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

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

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

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
My point was that some people believe freedom of choice is
actually
passed
down from a deity, and this is especially true of cars for some
reason.
In
fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with guns.
Period.
Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a nerve with
some
people
if you suggest this. :-)

There's a significant difference in the concept and the
implementation
which seems to have escaped you...

I don't think so, but it's early yet.

Look, you have to admit that if you sat down with (let's say) 100
people
and
said "Do you know that you can achieve all your stated goals (for
your
next
car purchase) with a vehicle that gets 30% better gas mileage?",
there
would
be some people (and I believe it's a large percentage) who'd
actually
say
"Holy **** - I really didn't know that". And, there would be some
who'd
already done as much research as they could, and maybe just
gathered
knowledge over the years, and really DID need a big pickup truck or
SUV.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't let people buy what they want.
What
I
*am*
saying is that I doubt very much that many consumers really know
what
they're getting into with SUVs, and would make a different choice
on
their
own, given the right information. The glut of these vehicles in
used
car
lots is some indication of this idea.

You whiffed on the point entirely...

I commented only on your comment establishment of US via armed
revolution as being the implementation of a concept which was
expressed
in the Declaration...

Oh. OK. Well....I filter out the word "god" from all government
related
documents because I think it's nonsense to blend the two. So, I have a
really hard time with someone who says it's his god-given right to do
things
that are unpatriotic.

Well, you might read the Declaration of Independence (I'd say "again",
but it's clear you must not have ever really read it)....

What is "patriotic" in the sense of most of your complaints is, in our
society, mostly in the eye of the beholder, not some external moralist
such as yourself.

So, in other words, you'd NEVER be prepared to make certain sacrifices
for
your country, as our parents and grandparents did during WWII, for
example?

No, I'm perfectly prepared...I'm only opposed those who think/spout
PC'ese

What if your president told you the exact same thing I'm saying?

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
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? Would that be
worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing so? Sure - maybe
eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires which make sense for how the
owner will ACTUALLY use the car. And, reprogram the transmission so it
shifts according to a pattern that matches how the car is ACTUALLY used. If
you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

The amount of time spent in lower gear owing to shifting patterns is
pretty miniscule. What is far more significant is rear-end ratio. But,
if one turns a truck tranny/rear end into a car one, two things
happen--1. The vehicle no longer serves its design purpose, and 2. when
used as intended, it will suffer untimely failure.

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


Maybe if our commander in chief wasn't constantly hurting himslef on
bikes and pretzels, could speak like somebody with a Yale education and
wasn't trying to run this country into the ground by spending the USA
credit card all the time, he'd ahve more respect.



David Letterman sometimes runs a short feature called "George Bush -
Wordsmith" Actual video clips of George, with absolutely NO comments
added. Recent quote:

"Some of these people have actually been trained to disassemble. That
means to not tell the truth".

The show overlaid text of the definition of "disassemble", just in case
anyone wasn't sure.

Actually, that word is correct. Disassemble is to take apart, and some
sure do that with the truth.

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.

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

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

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is not),
the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes
within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was
detonated
in a restaurant.

In the US specifically, retail prices are being controlled by a lack of
increased refining capacity which makes any real or threatened
perturbation to daily supply subject to market speculation. If you
could get your friends to support siting such facilities, we'd have a
whole lot less volatility initially followed by a drop in price at the
pump...

Speculation. Exactly. Definition: A bunch of suits who also bet on hog
bellies and orange juice.

Again you miss the essential point--if there were increased refining
capacity, there would be no significant "fear factor" to spur the short
term speculation as reserves would be ample and short term interruptions
from such things as Dennis would be essentially immaterial.

I know what you're saying, but speculators only make money when prices move.
Ever notice that if Wal Mart announces less then fabulous earnings, Sears
stock goes down?

But markets' volatility is directly owing to external factors--removing
the limiting factor would eliminate the mindset of possible shortage.
There must be a driving mechanism to fuel the speculation. Not all
market fluctuations would be eliminated entirely, of course, but the
excessive volatility would disappear overnight if refinery capacity were
increased Monday.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....

What if your president told you the exact same thing I'm saying?

Would depend entirely on the context...in some cases it would be a
clarion call, in others simply more PC BS...

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

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

The car
makers can reduce the price a little, but probably make more, since
most customers have no real idea how much cheaper it is to make a
2wd
vehicle. And, offer 4wd versions for people who explicitly ask for
them. I don't think many will.

Even more impractical.

Are you saying that offering a selection is impractical?

No, I'm saying that offering a front-drive and a 4WD version of the
same
thing
is impractical from the standpoint of building the vehicle.

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

Yes.

A 4WD/2WD is still rear drive w/ longitudinal engine mount. FWD is
transverse.

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

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
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? Would that
be
worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing so? Sure -
maybe
eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires which make sense for how
the
owner will ACTUALLY use the car. And, reprogram the transmission so it
shifts according to a pattern that matches how the car is ACTUALLY used.
If
you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

The amount of time spent in lower gear owing to shifting patterns is
pretty miniscule.

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, and I've heard the same thing from
other owners in discussions of how to improve gas mileage. Yeah - you learn
to deal with it, if you're paying attention.


What is far more significant is rear-end ratio. But,
if one turns a truck tranny/rear end into a car one, two things
happen--1. The vehicle no longer serves its design purpose, and 2. when
used as intended, it will suffer untimely failure.

All correct, but as we've already established, most SUVs are NOT towing, NOT
hauling a ton (literally) of cargo, NOT dancing across creeks & boulders
like in the commercials. So, "serving its design purpose" leads us back in a
circle to providing vehicles that actually meet the needs of the people
buying them. I need to haul a boat. Most SUVs don't.

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

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

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

"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .

Oil prices are up because Communist China is using much more oil

Only indirectly. Unless there is a REAL shortage (which there is
not),
the
price is determined in the same way as many other investments, such
as
stocks: Speculation and mood. Next time a suicide bomber strikes
within
Saudi Arabia, watch the price of oil closely, even if the bomb was
detonated
in a restaurant.

In the US specifically, retail prices are being controlled by a lack
of
increased refining capacity which makes any real or threatened
perturbation to daily supply subject to market speculation. If you
could get your friends to support siting such facilities, we'd have
a
whole lot less volatility initially followed by a drop in price at
the
pump...

Speculation. Exactly. Definition: A bunch of suits who also bet on hog
bellies and orange juice.

Again you miss the essential point--if there were increased refining
capacity, there would be no significant "fear factor" to spur the short
term speculation as reserves would be ample and short term
interruptions
from such things as Dennis would be essentially immaterial.

I know what you're saying, but speculators only make money when prices
move.
Ever notice that if Wal Mart announces less then fabulous earnings, Sears
stock goes down?

But markets' volatility is directly owing to external factors--removing
the limiting factor would eliminate the mindset of possible shortage.
There must be a driving mechanism to fuel the speculation. Not all
market fluctuations would be eliminated entirely, of course, but the
excessive volatility would disappear overnight if refinery capacity were
increased Monday.

Probably. I see a shortcut to that goal, but nobody would agree to the idea.

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

Doug Kanter wrote:

"FDR" wrote in message
. ..



Maybe if our commander in chief wasn't constantly hurting himslef on
bikes and pretzels, could speak like somebody with a Yale education and
wasn't trying to run this country into the ground by spending the USA
credit card all the time, he'd ahve more respect.



David Letterman sometimes runs a short feature called "George Bush -
Wordsmith" Actual video clips of George, with absolutely NO comments
added. Recent quote:

"Some of these people have actually been trained to disassemble. That
means to not tell the truth".

The show overlaid text of the definition of "disassemble", just in case
anyone wasn't sure.

Actually, that word is correct. Disassemble is to take apart, and some
sure do that with the truth.


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.



He does need to get a NU, CLEAR way of pronouncing that.



--
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.

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
Are you saying it's MECHANICALLY impractical, or impractical in a
business
sense?

Yes.

A 4WD/2WD is still rear drive w/ longitudinal engine mount. FWD is
transverse.

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

No, not impossible, impractical...

Doug Kanter wrote:

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
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? Would that
be
worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing so? Sure -
maybe
eliminating 4WD only adds 1 mpg. Now, add tires which make sense for how
the
owner will ACTUALLY use the car. And, reprogram the transmission so it
shifts according to a pattern that matches how the car is ACTUALLY used.
If
you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

The amount of time spent in lower gear owing to shifting patterns is
pretty miniscule.

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, and I've heard the same thing from
other owners in discussions of how to improve gas mileage. Yeah - you learn
to deal with it, if you're paying attention.

What is far more significant is rear-end ratio. But,
if one turns a truck tranny/rear end into a car one, two things
happen--1. The vehicle no longer serves its design purpose, and 2. when
used as intended, it will suffer untimely failure.

All correct, but as we've already established, most SUVs are NOT towing, NOT
hauling a ton (literally) of cargo, NOT dancing across creeks & boulders
like in the commercials. So, "serving its design purpose" leads us back in a
circle to providing vehicles that actually meet the needs of the people
buying them. I need to haul a boat. Most SUVs don't.

But, it comes down to the fact that the manufacturer can't know a priori
the end use of the vehicle...all they can do is design a vehicle to be
meet a specific set of objectives. It's up to the consumer to determine
which vehicle best fits their needs, not me (or, especially,
government)...

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
But markets' volatility is directly owing to external factors--removing
the limiting factor would eliminate the mindset of possible shortage.
There must be a driving mechanism to fuel the speculation. Not all
market fluctuations would be eliminated entirely, of course, but the
excessive volatility would disappear overnight if refinery capacity were
increased Monday.

Probably. I see a shortcut to that goal, but nobody would agree to the idea.

You see a partial, minimal help, not a panacea...

Doug Kanter wrote
The Real Bev wrote
max wrote
wrote

That sounds right to me. Who are you to decide what vehicle is
right for someone else? Once you start that process, then we
should go take a look at everything people own and do. Is that
ski trip to Colorado necessary? Or should one drive to a ski
resort that's closer? How about driving the family to the beach
every weekend in the summer? Maybe we should close places like
Disneyland, since not only does it use a lot of unnecessary energy,

And that's how politics in America works.

If someone suggests that SUV's are a bad idea and that we ought to use less
gasoline, the next thing you get is "why do you want to
close disneyland and throw me in jail for going to Steamboat??"

Because that's the end result of one group of people deciding what's moral
for everybody and it's our civic duty to point that out whenever the
opportunity arises.

That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea.

Its still a dud.

You've seen public service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of
tobacco, etc. You have no problem with those commercials,

I do, actually.

and they actually work over a period of time.

Only with the most extreme risks like smoking.

They wouldnt with SUVs because they cant do anything about
the reason most buy SUVs, they sit higher and feel safer.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed
at informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.

Your surety is misplaced. They would be a complete waste of money.

And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to get
with a good psychologist.

If you consider that they will have any effect
on SUV buying, you really need to get a clue.

Doug Kanter wrote
Duane Bozarth wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

That's pretty extreme. Here's a more moderate idea. You've seen public
service commercials about forest fires, the dangers of tobacco, etc. You
have no problem with those commercials, and they actually work over a period
of time.

So, I'm sure you would have no problem with similar commercials aimed at
informing clueless consumers of things they did not know about vehicles.
And, if you considered that to be a form of control, you really need to get
with a good psychologist.

Well, I do have a problem w/ a lot of them...every time I see them I think
mostly of the waste of my tax money...

Me too, but believe it or not, a few of them have worked.

Not ones that point out that SUVs shouldnt be bought by those that
buy them just because they feel safer. Complete waste of money.

Takes forever,

Doesnt work at all with SUVs.

but so does winning an argument with your wife.

Hardly surprising when you are so hopeless at it.

"Rod Speed" wrote:
They wouldnt with SUVs because they cant do anything about
the reason most buy SUVs, they sit higher and feel safer.

True. And one of the reasons that sitting higher has become more of
an issue is the number of SUVs and minivans on the road. As a result,
if you're in a sedan, it's become much more difficult to see any
distance ahead...