Doug Kanter wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

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

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

Who said "mystical"?

Anyone with a clue.

I believe it's you that's been focused on what a small difference it would
make.

Because thats all the difference it would make.

But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle, and together they added,
say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

You dont get anything like that between front wheel drive
cars and those with conventional drive trains, and you dont
get anything like that with the different shift points either.

Would that be worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing so?

Yes, it would be nice to have a magic wand to wave.

Soorree, fresh out of those.

We have seen those 20% improvements but it
wasnt due to those approaches you are proposing.

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.

Wont give you 20% and its completely trivial to prove that.

If it was that easy, one of the SUV manufacturers would do
that with gas prices high enough to get some irritated by them.

If you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

Nope, your 20% is pure fantasy.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
wrote

Like we ignored Afghanistan for over a decade, while the Taliban let Bin
Laden run terrorist training camps.

Ignored? We financed and armed the Taliban, professor.

Like hell we ever did.

We did arm the Mujahidin, and they got ****ed over by
the Taliban, who were financed and armed by Pakistan.

I'm still entertained when I read the story of Peter Rabbit. You too, I
suspect.

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

Obviously not.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Yes, it makes sense to not have the 4WD in theory, but even
that is arguable in areas that see much snow etc, particularly
for the sort of woman driver that drives so many of the SUVs.

You can make a case that they are quite a bit safer in those
in the worst driving conditions of snow and icy roads etc.

Skill and the correct tires trump drive train features, always.

Pity that sort of driver doesnt have those skills.

4WD does indeed make sense for THOSE drivers.

I live in the kind of climate you describe, and we see see loads of 4WD
vehicles in ditches.

Irrelevant to how many more would
be in those ditches without the 4WD.

They produce a false sense of confidence,

So does front wheel drive.

something I learned in my first half hour of driving in snow with my 4WD
pickup. That's why I feel the feature is a silly one to base a purchase on
***FOR SOME PEOPLE***.

More fool you.

If you're a half-assed driver, the feature will do very little for you in
snow.

Wrong.

And they are basically prepared to pay for that in the substantially
higher cost of the vehicle and the cost of the fuel it wastes while
ever the cost of fuel is affordible, and it obviously still is.

And that's the problem!

Nope.

***IF*** you believe that it's a useful strategy for this country to buy less
oil,

Wont have any effect on the world price of oil.

The oil producers tweak their output to match the demand.

and ***IF*** you can make a contribution in that direction, then whether you
can afford the fuel is not the issue.

Corse it is. Its that that drives the vehicle purchases, stupid.

I don't think we disagree that much.

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,
whether thats the design side of the vehicle and the effect on
fuel consumption, the effect of vehicle fuel efficiencys on the
world price of oil, the reason why those who buy SUVs buy
SUVs, the value of 4WD for the average unskilled vehicle
driver, the value of ads pouring scorn on SUVs, etc etc etc.

My thoughts come from lots of conversations with my grandparents, who, along
with millions of other Americans, made some significant sacrifices during
other times of shortage, such as WWII. To them, it was a very matter of fact
thing - just something did for your country.

And you wont get that effect today when
the threat to the country isnt so graphic.

WW2 had no effect on americans until after Pearl Harbour
either when even the stupidest american was brought up short.

And, it still happens today.

Not really. The reaction to 9/11 was quite different, with plenty
bitching about stuff like the Patriot Act. Nothing like that happened
after Pearl Harbour when security etc was tightened dramatically.

When we first went to Iraq, people in one of the gun newsgroups
commented that they were unable to order enough of certain rifle
ammo. Someone pointed out a news article indicating that two
manufacturers were running 3 shifts at full capacity. No big deal.
People waited a bit.

And you wont get people avoiding SUVs on the basis of YOUR
claims about the effect of those on the economics of oil imports.

Basically because you are just plain wrong on that.

The only thing that will do anything much about the consumers choosing 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.

I'm not so sure about that, but...oh well.

I am. The reality is that the north american standard of living
is so high that SUVs are completey affordible and so those
who have never been that confident of their driving abilitys
just feel safer in them, because they sit a lot higher in them.

Most do manage to work out for themselves that
vehicle accidents are by far the biggest killer in
the first world today until you get into your 80s.

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".

Iraq wasnt about the price of oil.

Iraq wasn't even about Iraq, and still isn't.

Corse it isnt, it was just the latest example of
stomping on countrys you dont like the fine detail of.

It'd be interesting to know what dubya would
do if he had that decision to make again,
knowing how stupid the iraqis actually are now.

We certainly wont see an invasion of Iran, you watch.

Ford Prefect wrote
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.

It actually depends on where you live. It is certainly
possible in some areas, particularly those that dont
get that hot, but there arent enough who live in those
areas to be that significant to the bulk of the first world.

And while its possible to be entirely energy self sufficient
in some areas where it doesnt get too cold, there arent
all that many that keen on living in super insulated houses.

The short story is that they prefer to pay what is
quite affordable for the mains power they need 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.

Yes, that is possible in areas that dont get too hot.

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.

Pity about the total cost of the panels and batterys compared
with the cost of the mains power if the mains is available.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

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

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..." comes
from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years of our
existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates who raided
Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay tribute. In 1801, the
pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute, which led to the Tripolitan
war with the United States. When the peace treaty was signed on June 4,
1805, U.S. ships no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and stewing over
Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some time in or
near Tripoli in WWII.

I doubt it, and that was problem with krauts, not moslems anyway.

But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or whatever the major religion was
in Germany at the time.
:-)

The real problem was with the non religious krauts who started the war.

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

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

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

Who said "mystical"?

Anyone with a clue.

I believe it's you that's been focused on what a small difference it
would make.

Because thats all the difference it would make.

But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle, and together they
added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

You dont get anything like that between front wheel drive
cars and those with conventional drive trains, and you dont
get anything like that with the different shift points either.

Would that be worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing
so?

Yes, it would be nice to have a magic wand to wave.

Soorree, fresh out of those.

We have seen those 20% improvements but it
wasnt due to those approaches you are proposing.

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.

Wont give you 20% and its completely trivial to prove that.

If it was that easy, one of the SUV manufacturers would do
that with gas prices high enough to get some irritated by them.

If you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

Nope, your 20% is pure fantasy.



It's an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, you twit. But, if you'd
like to consider it total nonsense, then pick a number and prove your
theory.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,

No you don't. You've made it obvious that being contrary is a hobby.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
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...

I haven't told you what it is yet! :-)

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

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

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years
of our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates who
raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay tribute.
In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute, which led
to the Tripolitan war with the United States. When the peace treaty
was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S. ships no longer had to pay tribute
to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic
anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and stewing
over Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some time in
or near Tripoli in WWII.

I doubt it, and that was problem with krauts, not moslems anyway.

But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or whatever the major
religion was in Germany at the time.
:-)

The real problem was with the non religious krauts who started the war.


I was keeping the analogy as similar as possible.

Steve wrote
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...

I'm not convinced its a rational choice, they just feel safer.

And its mostly those who dont feel that comfortable driving,
like women drivers too. Thats why so many of those like SUVs.

They're mosty too stupid to realise that they are risking
running over kids when backing into areas etc too.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Doug Miller wrote
Doug Kanter wrote

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

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

Who said "mystical"?

Anyone with a clue.

I believe it's you that's been focused on what a small difference it would
make.

Because thats all the difference it would make.

But, what if you made 3 simple changes to a vehicle, and together they
added, say, 20% more gas mileage?

Fantasy, you cant point to any pair of vehicles that have achieved that.

You dont get anything like that between front wheel drive
cars and those with conventional drive trains, and you dont
get anything like that with the different shift points either.

Would that be worthwhile if the vehicles werent' turned to crap by doing so?

Yes, it would be nice to have a magic wand to wave.

Soorree, fresh out of those.

We have seen those 20% improvements but it
wasnt due to those approaches you are proposing.

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.

Wont give you 20% and its completely trivial to prove that.

If it was that easy, one of the SUV manufacturers would do
that with gas prices high enough to get some irritated by them.

If you don't understand this last point, just ask. It's real.

Nope, your 20% is pure fantasy.

It's an arbitrary number for the sake of discussion, you twit.

Its a number you plucked out of your arse, completely mystical.

But, if you'd like to consider it total nonsense, then pick a number and prove
your theory.

YOU made the claim. YOU get to do the proving. THATS how it works.

Someone else has already rubbed your nose in real numbers with
a particular pair of vehicles that proves your claim is pure fantasy.

I did already with your original claim that front wheel drive makes
much difference to fuel economy with everything else the same.

It doesnt, and nothing like that completely silly 20% you waved around.

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

If you do care about fuel economy, you can do much better
than that by using a diesel engine in a conventional car like
has been done with the best of the european economy cars.
But you wont see SUV buyers buying those whatever you do
advertising wise, because they dont feel as safe in those.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,

No you don't. You've made it obvious that being contrary is a hobby.

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

Obviously not.

You spew pig ignorant silly stuff, I will rub your nose in how silly your claims
are.

You get to like that or lump it.

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

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

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

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of
Tripoli..." comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing
the first 25 years of our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates
who raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay
tribute. In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of
tribute, which led to the Tripolitan war with the United
States. When the peace treaty was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S.
ships no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money,
called "tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with
Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig
ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and
stewing over Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some
time in or near Tripoli in WWII.

I doubt it, and that was problem with krauts, not moslems anyway.

But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or whatever the major
religion was in Germany at the time.
:-)

The real problem was with the non religious krauts who started the
war.

I was keeping the analogy as similar as possible.

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

Jim Yanik . wrote:
wrote:

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

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

The part of ANWR they want to drill in is a desolate miserable place,not
any "pristine wilderness".

False. It is hardly miserable, it is not desolate (it is in
fact teaming with life), and it is as close to "pristine
wilderness" as can be found anywhere in North America.

I've been there, I've seen it and touched it. You are lying.

And where they already have drilled,the wildlife is doing fine.

Well ain't that odd... we've got 30 years of biology studies
done by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, which say that is not true.

What makes *you* say the biologists are wrong?

BTW, of the dozens of credible biologists who have done field
work on the North Slope (all paid with oil money and all
studying ways to produce more oil), there are virtually *none*
that say we can develop oil in ANWR without serious
environmental impact that should be avoided.

I say "virtually", because there is exactly 1 such biologist,
though he has been thoroughly discredited. Matthew Cronin
insists that all of the other dozens of biologists are wrong and
mis-interpreting the data. *He* is a whacko, and if you spout
the same nonsense he does, so are you.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"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...

I'm not convinced its a rational choice, they just feel safer.

No argument there. Given the testing that's been done, it's clearly
not a rational safety choice. But the seating height does make a
difference in visibility.

And its mostly those who dont feel that comfortable driving,
like women drivers too. Thats why so many of those like SUVs.

Dunno about that, seems to be mostly men around here...

They're mosty too stupid to realise that they are risking
running over kids when backing into areas etc too.

Probably the most serious problem with SUVs...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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

You just chose an arbitrary number, just like I did. Back it up, or accept
the fact that we're talking about arbitrary numbers. That means you, too.

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

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,

No you don't. You've made it obvious that being contrary is a hobby.

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

Obviously not.

You spew pig ignorant silly stuff, I will rub your nose in how silly your
claims are.

You get to like that or lump it.


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

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

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

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

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of
Tripoli..." comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing
the first 25 years of our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates
who raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay
tribute. In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of
tribute, which led to the Tripolitan war with the United
States. When the peace treaty was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S.
ships no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money,
called "tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with
Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig
ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and
stewing over Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some
time in or near Tripoli in WWII.

I doubt it, and that was problem with krauts, not moslems anyway.

But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or whatever the major
religion was in Germany at the time.
:-)

The real problem was with the non religious krauts who started the
war.

I was keeping the analogy as similar as possible.

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


He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with Muslims. I mentioned
our later presence in Tripoli as a problem with Lutherans. Doesn't matter if
every German soldier we met in the desert was atheist, Lutheran, or
Catholic. I was pushing his stupid comment to the absurd. It worked.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,

No you don't. You've made it obvious that being contrary is a hobby.

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

Obviously not.

You spew pig ignorant silly stuff, I will rub your nose in how silly your
claims are.

You get to like that or lump it.

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

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

"I know what you're saying, but speculators only make money when prices
move. "

LOL. Another subject we can add to the list that Doug Kanter claims to
know about, but soon as he posts a couple of things, it becomes obvious
that he doesn't. FYI Doug, speculators can make money whether a market
goes up, down, or just stays where it is.

"Ever notice that if Wal Mart announces less then fabulous earnings,
Sears
stock goes down? "

Wow, what an astute observation. Who would have thunk that? LOL

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

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

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years of
our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates
who raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay
tribute. In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute,
which led to the Tripolitan war with the United
States. When the peace treaty was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S. ships
no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and stewing
over Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some time in or
near Tripoli in WWII.

I doubt it, and that was problem with krauts, not moslems anyway.

But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or whatever the major religion
was in Germany at the time.
:-)

The real problem was with the non religious krauts who started the war.

I was keeping the analogy as similar as possible.

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

He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with Muslims.

He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with
moslems just 25 years after american independance.

Exposing Peng's pig ignorant silly stuff for what it is.

I mentioned our later presence in Tripoli as a problem with Lutherans.

Pity those krauts that started that particular war werent even lutherans.

Doesn't matter if every German soldier we met in the desert was atheist,
Lutheran, or Catholic. I was pushing his stupid comment to the absurd. It
worked.

Nope, it was completely irrelevant to the moslems
he quite accurately showed were a problem only
25 years after america even existed.

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

Actually, that word is correct.
[snip]

Actually, that word is not correct. The intended word was "dissemble" --

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

That means you, too.

Wrong again.


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

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

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,

No you don't. You've made it obvious that being contrary is a hobby.

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

Obviously not.

You spew pig ignorant silly stuff, I will rub your nose in how silly
your claims are.

You get to like that or lump it.

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

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

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

wrote in message
oups.com...
"I know what you're saying, but speculators only make money when prices
move. "

LOL. Another subject we can add to the list that Doug Kanter claims to
know about, but soon as he posts a couple of things, it becomes obvious
that he doesn't. FYI Doug, speculators can make money whether a market
goes up, down, or just stays where it is.

"Ever notice that if Wal Mart announces less then fabulous earnings,
Sears
stock goes down? "

Wow, what an astute observation. Who would have thunk that? LOL


So, you actually believe that changes in the price of oil are connected with
PHYSICAL REALITY, such as shortages, higher demand from China, or hurricanes
which MIGHT cause damage to refineries?

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with Muslims.

He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with
moslems just 25 years after american independance.

Oh, I see. You're focused on the years, and the fact that the guy who
cranked up the bribe money HAPPENED TO BE a Muslim. So, if he had been
Catholic, would it have been a problem with Catholics? Or would it then be a
problem with navigation rights, which, by the way, is the ONLY problem that
caused the little war.



Exposing Peng's pig ignorant silly stuff for what it is.

I mentioned our later presence in Tripoli as a problem with Lutherans.

Pity those krauts that started that particular war werent even lutherans.

The particular religion is irrelevant. Pick the religion and get over it.


Doesn't matter if every German soldier we met in the desert was atheist,
Lutheran, or Catholic. I was pushing his stupid comment to the absurd. It
worked.

Nope, it was completely irrelevant to the moslems
he quite accurately showed were a problem only
25 years after america even existed.

No. It was a problem with a guy who was the equivalent of a mob boss who
runs a piece of Brooklyn, and wanted his cut of the shipping profits. He
happened to be a Muslim. To draw any similarities between that situation and
today's mess, you have to be a complete moron.

"World Traveler" wrote in message
link.net...

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

Actually, that word is correct.
[snip]

Actually, that word is not correct. The intended word was "dissemble" --



Great. The head idiot's speech writers don't bother to check the words they
feed him. And/or he does not read the crap before he goes onstage. And, his
followers swallow it like it's gospel.

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

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

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

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I disagree completely on virtually everything you have said,

No you don't. You've made it obvious that being contrary is a
hobby.

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

Obviously not.

You spew pig ignorant silly stuff, I will rub your nose in how
silly your claims are.

You get to like that or lump it.

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

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

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

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

And I rubbed your nose in the FACT that the european fuel
economy cars, particularly diesels, do a lot better than your
fanciful 20%, and thats from the official figures too.

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

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

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


Show me some. Now.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

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

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

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

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

As I explained, my number was arbitrary, just as yours are. Back up your
claim that 3-4 mechanical changes won't produce "X", whatever "X" is. Now.

"FDR" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" . wrote in message
.. .
"Buck Turgidson" wrote in news2q2q2-
:

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 Constitution. Our written laws.Individual rights.

So why did you elect that bozo?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net




I trust Bush a lot more than any Democrat.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"FDR" wrote in
news

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

"max" wrote in message
...


The problem is most of our petroleum imports go to motor fuel and,
Americans simply refuse (other than a tithe of weirdos "Liberals"
and other assorted Unamerican dweebs) to make any of the necessary
behavioral, purchasing or use pattern changes necessary to reduce
our fuel consumption.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to
change was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was
considering a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and
hauled nothing - no need for such a vehicle. His response was that
this was America and he had a god-given right to own anything he
wanted.

Well,that IS the truth.It's supposedly a free country.
It's their money to spend.

I dodn't know that God gave rights to vehicle ownership. Is that in
Leviticus or James?

It's called property rights.Of course use on public roads is regulated.
Who said anything about"God"? I didn't.



Or are you one of those who believe that government should determine
what people can or can't own?

I think common sense should dictate that. Unfortunately little of
that is around.

Common sense would still be an *individual's* free choice.Not dictated by
government



(IOW,a Communist/Socialist)

(I drive a small fuel-efficient car,BTW,only owned one "large" car in
my life. )

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"FDR" wrote in
:


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


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

I said nothing about reducing engine size. I'm talking about the
100-200 lbs of extra parts that a 4WD vehicle needs to turn, even
when 4WD is not engaged. Take a Ford Explorer, for instance.
***BASICALLY*** the same V-8 as a Crown Victoria. The sedan gets (in
real world terms) about 25% better gas mileage.

fleets like that generally want to stick with one type of vehicle, so
they can keep a smaller supply of parts like tires, filters, etc.
plus, car tires are cheaper than SUV tires.

True, but with the political clout they have, I don't think the NYS
police would put up with bad vehicles for very long, considering that
they have to drive the things in some of the most disgusting weather
you've ever seen.




Actually,police departments are turning to more SUVs as the large autos
they need are being discontinued.And the SUVs work better in flood and
other weather conditions.

Uhm, SUVs are **** for high speed chases.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net




Police are moving away from high-speed chases;they tend to harm citizens
not involved in the pursuit.
Most PDs have strict policies on pursuit.
On Interstates and limited access highways,police are using specialized
pursuit vehicles,and now undercover vehicles that one would not ordinarily
recognize as a police car.

They also use air assets to keep track of fleeing vehicles.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

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

That means you, too.

Wrong again.

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

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

Show me some. Now.

Those arent visible to other than members.

"FDR" wrote in
news

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote

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

Irrelevant to the official numbers on fuel economy.

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

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

As I explained, my number was arbitrary,

Completely silly, actually.

just as yours are.

Wrong again.

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

Go and **** yourself. Now.

Someone else already provided the official numbers with front wheel drive.

There are plenty of other numbers on the other changes.

Even you should be able to find them.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

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

"max" wrote in message
...


The problem is most of our petroleum imports go to motor fuel and,
Americans simply refuse (other than a tithe of weirdos "Liberals"
and other assorted Unamerican dweebs) to make any of the necessary
behavioral, purchasing or use pattern changes necessary to reduce
our fuel consumption.

It's even worse than you think. I used to think the refusal to
change was a matter of laziness, until I asked someone why he was
considering a huge pickup truck, even though he towed nothing and
hauled nothing - no need for such a vehicle. His response was that
this was America and he had a god-given right to own anything he
wanted.

Well,that IS the truth.It's supposedly a free country.
It's their money to spend.

Or are you one of those who believe that government should determine
what people can or can't own?

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.

Well,I dislike SUVs too,but if those owners choose to pay the high gas
prices,and drive a road barge,that's their choice.I don't -like- it,but
that's just my opinion.Some SUV owners DO have good reason to own/operate
them.I REALLY dislike the idea of government or "democracy" telling people
what they can or can't own,among a few other governmental assaults on
freedom.

In fact, freedom of choice in this country originated with
guns.

I'm in agreement on this.

Period. Nothing to do with a god, although you really touch a
nerve with some people if you suggest this. :-)


I agree with this,too.
Far too many religious people want everyone else to live by -their-
religion. Many cannot even acknowledge it,either.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
Rod Speed wrote
FDR wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Doug Kanter wrote
HeyBub wrote
PaPaPeng wrote

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

And where do you think the refrain "...to the shores of Tripoli..."
comes from? We were at war with Muslims withing the first 25 years
of
our existence.

" Tripolitania was one of the outposts for the Barbary pirates
who raided Mediterranean merchant ships or required them to pay
tribute. In 1801, the pasha of Tripoli raised the price of tribute,
which led to the Tripolitan war with the United
States. When the peace treaty was signed on June 4, 1805, U.S. ships
no longer had to pay tribute to Tripoli. "

Is that the war you're referring to? It was a war over money, called
"tribute" in this example. It had nothing to do with Islamic
anything,

They were however muslims, so Peng's claim is just plain pig
ignorant.

any more than a mafia don's catholic upbringing has to do
with his insistence that some profits get kicked upstairs.

Peng just said 'problem with Muslims'

I could just see Bin Laden and his buddies sitting there and stewing
over Tripoli. Yeah right.

Irrelevant to Peng's stupid pig ignorant claim.

Maybe he was thinking about the fact that our troops spent some time in
or
near Tripoli in WWII.

I doubt it, and that was problem with krauts, not moslems anyway.

But, that would be problems with Lutherans, or whatever the major
religion
was in Germany at the time.
:-)

The real problem was with the non religious krauts who started the war.

I was keeping the analogy as similar as possible.

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

He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with Muslims.

He mentioned Tripoli as an example of a problem with
moslems just 25 years after american independance.

Oh, I see.

No you dont.

You're focused on the years,

Because thats what matters with that pig ignorant claim Peng made.

and the fact that the guy who cranked up the bribe money HAPPENED TO BE a
Muslim.

Thats what matters with Peng's pig ignorant
claim about PROBLEMS WITH MUSLIMS.

So, if he had been Catholic, would it have been a problem with Catholics?

Corse it would.

Or would it then be a problem with navigation rights,

Pirates aint about 'navigation rights'

which, by the way, is the ONLY problem that caused the little war.

Wrong again. The problem was with pirates.

Exposing Peng's pig ignorant silly stuff for what it is.

I mentioned our later presence in Tripoli as a problem with Lutherans.

Pity those krauts that started that particular war werent even lutherans.

The particular religion is irrelevant.

Nope.

Pick the religion and get over it.

Work on your bull****ting 'skills'

Doesn't matter if every German soldier we met in the desert was atheist,
Lutheran, or Catholic. I was pushing his stupid comment to the absurd. It
worked.

Nope, it was completely irrelevant to the moslems
he quite accurately showed were a problem only
25 years after america even existed.

No.

Yep.

It was a problem with a guy who was the equivalent of a mob boss
who runs a piece of Brooklyn, and wanted his cut of the shipping
profits. He happened to be a Muslim. To draw any similarities between
that situation and today's mess, you have to be a complete moron.

Pity no one was doing anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

ALL Peng ever did was claim that there hadnt been any PROBLEMS WITH
MUSLIMS PRIOR TO 9/11 and made a VERY spectacular fool of himself
when he flaunted his complete pig ignorance of history when he did.