On Dec 6, 7:29*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Being 50 years older is one big reason. *When I was 16 I could do a
lot of things easer than I can at 66. *I could even do some of them
two or three times a day.

You mean two or three times a NIGHT, don't you? On the other hand, it now
takes me all night to do what I used to do all night.

Same here but she _really_ appreciates it!

Harry K

On 12/6/2011 11:17 AM, M.A. Stewart wrote:

Wadya mean "stinkin' Romans"??... Romans didn't stink... they invented
plumbing!




Good point! Let's just blame the Germans and be done with it. Don't even
get me started with the Chinese and their side posting!

"M.A. Stewart" wrote in message
...
dsi1 ) writes:
On Dec 6, 3:05=C2=A0am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the Romans, was it, center posted Jesus between two thieves.
Unde=
r a
sign that said "Here is the king of the Jews".

"dsi1" wrote in message

...







On Dec 5, 5:02 pm, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
So, do you boys discuss sex with center posters?

I'm sorry, my religion does not allow me to discuss such matters in
mixed company. For was
It not Jesus that said "thou shall not center post?"
=C2=A0=F0=9F=8E=85


That's right! It was the stinkin' Roman's fault! They probably even
top posted that "King of the Jews" stuff. Where were that netcops when
we needed them?


Wadya mean "stinkin' Romans"??... Romans didn't stink... they invented
plumbing!


Indoor plumbing, outdoor public toilets (which there was quite a flap about
on taxation), and homes with very very very large baths that were quite the
thing. Not only from a hygiene point of view, but also from a social point.
Quite the change many centuries before the Middle Ages when people bathed
MONTHLY.

Steve

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 21:56:12 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:26:51 -0500, "
wrote:

hOn Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:09:42 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:



My Oral-B electric toothbrush uses inductive charging.
It works.

Try driving your toothbrush to work.

After you brush your teeth with your car.

In case you hadn't noticed, the subject was transportation.

On 6 Dec 2011 11:41:27 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:


My Oral-B electric toothbrush uses inductive charging.
It works.

The thing about induction charging is that you get a lot of loss as the
distance increases... it's greater than inverse-square law loss.

Not so much of a problem for a system you keep in the garage where you can
position the thing so it's a quarter-inch away from the coil in the trunk
when you drive into it. Not very practical for use on the highway where you
have trouble maintaining a fairly close contact.

A quarter inch isn't nearly close enough. Any air gap will be inefficient.
Why not just plug the thing in?

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03*am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.


Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

On Dec 6, 3:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. *If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

On 2011-12-07, dsi1 wrote:
On Dec 6, 3:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

That's how a top down command and control system works, or really does
not work.


Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. *If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

jeff_wisnia wrote:


Being 50 years older is one big reason. When I was 16 I could do a
lot of things easer than I can at 66. I could even do some of them
two or three times a day.

I know what you mean. What my wife and I used to do for hours now
takes us four hours.


Quite a change when the wife rolls over, exhausted, and goes to sleep.

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:48:35 -0800, dsi1 wrote:
My guess is that it could be anyone that lives near you
Maybe they're just interested in the safety of your neighborhood.
This seems reasonable and responsible to me. Forget about it.

All the private residence complaints seem reasonable given those
assumptions, except, perhaps, the hazmat leak complaint.
1) Fire Marshall (regulates containers larger than 60 gallons)
2) Zoning (prohibits structures closer than 6 feet to the property line)
3) Building (regulates structures greater than 120 square feet)
4) Hazmat (prohibits leakage but otherwise does not regulate gasoline)
5) CARB (regulates organic tanks larger than 260 gallons)

I've sufficiently thought it over and won't do anything more about it.

Here is the process if anyone wishes to follow in my footsteps:
1. Starting with a full 55-gallon drum & full vehicles
2. I fuel the two cars & other engines for about one to two months
3. At some point, the fuel tank is low so I need a gas station trip
4. I fill both the vehicle tank & I replenish the 5-gallon containers
5. I siphon the fuel from the 5-gallon container into the 55-gallon drum
6. And I go back to step 2 above.

Here are the costs comparisons:
a) The cost for the equipment was about $500
b) The savings per drum vary greatly (let's average to $.10/gallon)
c) That's only a savings of $5 per drum (ie cost can't be the key reason)
d) However, the equipment does pay for itself over about 17 years

$5/2months = $30/year = $500/17 years

These cost comparisons are only rough estimates.

Sometimes I fill up more frequently & other times I can take advantage of
price fluctuations, both of which lower the payback period. However,
often, I am the victim of price fluctuations (like when I needed to
refuel when gas was $4.35/gallon). What I often do in those cases is fill
up 'just' the vehicle, until prices drop back to reasonable levels.

All in all, I can't justify this on savings alone.

The biggest benefit is my wife loves me for it.

In fact, she hasn't been to a gas station in years, and even I have
started to enjoy the inherent convenience of filling up at home.

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"
My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

On 12/7/2011 4:41 AM, worker bee wrote:
On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:48:35 -0800, dsi1 wrote:
My guess is that it could be anyone that lives near you
Maybe they're just interested in the safety of your neighborhood.
This seems reasonable and responsible to me. Forget about it.

All the private residence complaints seem reasonable given those
assumptions, except, perhaps, the hazmat leak complaint.
1) Fire Marshall (regulates containers larger than 60 gallons)
2) Zoning (prohibits structures closer than 6 feet to the property line)
3) Building (regulates structures greater than 120 square feet)
4) Hazmat (prohibits leakage but otherwise does not regulate gasoline)
5) CARB (regulates organic tanks larger than 260 gallons)

I've sufficiently thought it over and won't do anything more about it.

Here is the process if anyone wishes to follow in my footsteps:
1. Starting with a full 55-gallon drum& full vehicles
2. I fuel the two cars& other engines for about one to two months
3. At some point, the fuel tank is low so I need a gas station trip
4. I fill both the vehicle tank& I replenish the 5-gallon containers
5. I siphon the fuel from the 5-gallon container into the 55-gallon drum
6. And I go back to step 2 above.

Here are the costs comparisons:
a) The cost for the equipment was about $500
b) The savings per drum vary greatly (let's average to $.10/gallon)
c) That's only a savings of $5 per drum (ie cost can't be the key reason)
d) However, the equipment does pay for itself over about 17 years

$5/2months = $30/year = $500/17 years

These cost comparisons are only rough estimates.

Sometimes I fill up more frequently& other times I can take advantage of
price fluctuations, both of which lower the payback period. However,
often, I am the victim of price fluctuations (like when I needed to
refuel when gas was $4.35/gallon). What I often do in those cases is fill
up 'just' the vehicle, until prices drop back to reasonable levels.

All in all, I can't justify this on savings alone.

The biggest benefit is my wife loves me for it.

In fact, she hasn't been to a gas station in years, and even I have
started to enjoy the inherent convenience of filling up at home.

Heck, I'd like it too if you filled up my tank for me. As it goes, I
have to fill up the tank for my wife. She ain't gonna do it. I get in
the car and that gas pump light is lit. I hate that! Hopefully, I'll
drop dead soon and then she'll have to gas the damn car up herself. Then
we'll see who gets the last laff. Well, technically I guess she will
because I'll be dead but you know what I mean...

"dsi1" wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?" My
guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death of the
electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no radiator,
an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no exhaust, no
cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need tires though.
:-)


Yawn
Won't happen real soon
The operating and infrastructure costs of an "electric" car are so great
that they can only be sold with major government subsidies
Not to mention the fact that most electricity is not produced in a "carbon
efficient" manner.
Can you say COAL BURNING GENERATOR ?

On 12/7/2011 12:25 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"dsi1" wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"
My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine,
no exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still
need tires though. :-)


Yawn
Won't happen real soon
The operating and infrastructure costs of an "electric" car are so great
that they can only be sold with major government subsidies
Not to mention the fact that most electricity is not produced in a
"carbon efficient" manner.
Can you say COAL BURNING GENERATOR ?

So you're sleepy. Go take a nap now. :-)

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:11:26 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. *If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

Yeah, that's why those computer thingies never caught on. what a maroon!

"dsi1" wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2011 12:25 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"dsi1" wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"
My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine,
no exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still
need tires though. :-)


Yawn
Won't happen real soon
The operating and infrastructure costs of an "electric" car are so great
that they can only be sold with major government subsidies
Not to mention the fact that most electricity is not produced in a
"carbon efficient" manner.
Can you say COAL BURNING GENERATOR ?

So you're sleepy. Go take a nap now. :-)

Yawning is not necessarily a sign of sleepiness
It's also a sign of acute boredom with a subject that has been chewed over
so many times that it's paste

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 14:41:58 +0000 (UTC), worker bee
wrote:




The biggest benefit is my wife loves me for it.

In fact, she hasn't been to a gas station in years, and even I have
started to enjoy the inherent convenience of filling up at home.

My wife has been to a gas station exactly once in our 45 years
together. It was the highest priced station, but they pumped it for
her. Same convenience, no cans and drums.

On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:05:06 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
Heck, I'd like it too if you filled up my tank for me. As it goes, I
have to fill up the tank for my wife. She ain't gonna do it. I get in
the car and that gas pump light is lit.

I hear that's rough on the fuel pump.

My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time she
does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit gas
station on the busy corner right next to the highway.

Since I only fill up once every couple of months, I can afford to go to
gasbuddy.com to pick which station is cheapest every two months.

I figure I easily save 10 cents a gallon over what she would pay, and
sometimes more. However, savings alone aren't enough reason to do this as
the equipment would take more than a decade to pay for itself at that
rate, assuming it doesn't depreciate appreciably

In the end, if you're gonna gas up at home, you just have be satisfied in
giving the wife the convenience of a perpetually full gas tank.

On 2011-12-07, dsi1 wrote:
On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

On Dec 7, 4:56*pm, "Attila.Iskander" wrote:
"dsi1" wrote in message

...









On 12/7/2011 12:25 PM, Attila.Iskander wrote:

"dsi1" wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"
My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine,
no exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still
need tires though. :-)

Yawn
Won't happen real soon
The operating and infrastructure costs of an "electric" car are so great
that they can only be sold with major government subsidies
Not to mention the fact that most electricity is not produced in a
"carbon efficient" manner.
Can you say COAL BURNING GENERATOR ?

So you're sleepy. Go take a nap now. :-)

Yawning is not necessarily a sign of sleepiness
It's also a sign of acute boredom with a subject that has been chewed over
so many times that it's paste

(yawn) it'll never fly Wilbur.
(yawn) those cars will never catch on, there's no roads!
(yawn) hydraulic brakes are the stupidest idea ever! People want
cable!
(yawn) front wheel drive? Over my dead body!
(yawn) digital cameras? Strictly for amateurs.
(yawn) so what else is new? (-:

On Dec 7, 4:39Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:11:26 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:









On Dec 6, 3:39Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. Â*If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

Yeah, that's why those computer thingies never caught on. Â*what a maroon!
Haha, one of those personal attack babies. 💩

On Dec 7, 5:08*pm, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, dsi1 wrote:

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, *wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

Let's not get sucked into this dopey topic and instead wait and see.
The winner gets to say "I told you so!"

On Dec 7, 5:00*pm, worker bee wrote:
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:05:06 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
Heck, I'd like it too if you filled up my tank for me. As it goes, I
have to fill up the tank for my wife. She ain't gonna do it. I get in
the car and that gas pump light is lit.

I hear that's rough on the fuel pump.


There's probably a little less than a couple of gallons left in the
tank when it comes on but the light really bugs me. I commend how
desire to please your wife.


My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time she
does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit gas
station on the busy corner right next to the highway.

Since I only fill up once every couple of months, I can afford to go to
gasbuddy.com to pick which station is cheapest every two months.

I figure I easily save 10 cents a gallon over what she would pay, and
sometimes more. However, savings alone aren't enough reason to do this as
the equipment would take more than a decade to pay for itself at that
rate, assuming it doesn't depreciate appreciably

In the end, if you're gonna gas up at home, you just have be satisfied in
giving the wife the convenience of a perpetually full gas tank.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:12:39 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 7, 4:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:11:26 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:









On Dec 6, 3:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. *If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

Yeah, that's why those computer thingies never caught on. *what a maroon!
Haha, one of those personal attack babies. ?

No, simple observation. You've demonstrated that you're an idiot.

worker bee wrote:

My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time
she does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit
gas station on the busy corner right next to the highway.


For her safety and your peace of mind, not to mention all the hustle and
bustle, encourage your wife to obtain a concealed handgun license, unless
you live in Illinois where you can't, or New Jersey, Hawaii, and a couple of
other places where it's damn near impossible.

You'll save money in the long run.

On Dec 7, 10:08*pm, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, dsi1 wrote:

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, *wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

Well said. It's also silly to think that the manufacturers who are
desperate
to survive, would not be all over electric cars if they held an
advantage or
if they were even practical at this point. A car like the Volt is
practical for
most people only as a car to make short trips. I can see using it as
a
second car that a husband drives to the commuter parking lot
each day. But of course the problem then is that it costs so much
that
we have to subsidize it with tax dollars, 40% of those dollars
currently
being borrowed. It takes a $12,000 subsidy to make a $40,000 volt
feasible. When compared to other technologies we could widely
deploy immediately, eg diesel, which gets high mileage,
and can stand on it;s own, electrics suck. And we could beusing
lots of diesel, like all of Europe, but for the refusal of the govt
and
environmentalists to tradeoff some of the emissions. And the fact
that some of the biggest states have more restrictive emissions that
make even the current limited availability ones illegal doesn't help
either.

On Dec 8, 8:43*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
worker bee wrote:

My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time
she does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit
gas station on the busy corner right next to the highway.

For her safety and your peace of mind, not to mention all the hustle and
bustle, encourage your wife to obtain a concealed handgun license, unless
you live in Illinois where you can't, or New Jersey, Hawaii, and a couple of
other places where it's damn near impossible.

In New Jersey, all the stations are full serve. It's illegal to pump
your own gas.

But, this woman is clearly irrational. Any non-white person is a thug
that's looking to rob, rape, or kill her, I'm sure.

Give her a gun, and she wouldn't pull the trigger. She ends up dead
and another illegal gun ends up on the street. Proper training, my
ass. No amount of training would turn her into a survival-instinct
killer.

Worst case she DOES pull the trigger, it'll be on some poor innocent
unsuspecting black man that's just trying to gas up his car on the
adjacent pump.

I know these types, the "strong, independent, modern woman" who in
reality is so f-d in the head that she's completely helpless and
afraid of her own shadow.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 07:25:48 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 8, 8:43Â*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
worker bee wrote:

My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time
she does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit
gas station on the busy corner right next to the highway.

For her safety and your peace of mind, not to mention all the hustle and
bustle, encourage your wife to obtain a concealed handgun license, unless
you live in Illinois where you can't, or New Jersey, Hawaii, and a couple of
other places where it's damn near impossible.

In New Jersey, all the stations are full serve. It's illegal to pump
your own gas.


I wonder how attended gas stations figures into the crime stats.
Never thought of that before.
Don't mind pumping my own gas - it's faster - but having the pump
jockey squeegee the windows was always appreciated.
Miss that free dishware too.

But, this woman is clearly irrational. Any non-white person is a thug
that's looking to rob, rape, or kill her, I'm sure.

Give her a gun, and she wouldn't pull the trigger. She ends up dead
and another illegal gun ends up on the street. Proper training, my
ass. No amount of training would turn her into a survival-instinct
killer.

Worst case she DOES pull the trigger, it'll be on some poor innocent
unsuspecting black man that's just trying to gas up his car on the
adjacent pump.

I know these types, the "strong, independent, modern woman" who in
reality is so f-d in the head that she's completely helpless and
afraid of her own shadow.

Gee, I was going to suggest she just keep a Molotov cocktail at hand.
Seems more efficient with all that gas in the jugs at home.
Now, on second thought...

--Vic

On Dec 8, 2:06Â*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:12:39 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:









On Dec 7, 4:39Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:11:26 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:39Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. Â*If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

Yeah, that's why those computer thingies never caught on. Â*what a maroon!
Haha, one of those personal attack babies. ?

No, simple observation. Â*You've demonstrated that you're an idiot.

What are you? 12 years old? You talk like that to people you don't
know? Your mom never taught you any manners? 😱

wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:43 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
worker bee wrote:

My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time
she does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit
gas station on the busy corner right next to the highway.

For her safety and your peace of mind, not to mention all the hustle
and bustle, encourage your wife to obtain a concealed handgun
license, unless you live in Illinois where you can't, or New Jersey,
Hawaii, and a couple of other places where it's damn near impossible.

In New Jersey, all the stations are full serve. It's illegal to pump
your own gas.

But, this woman is clearly irrational. Any non-white person is a thug
that's looking to rob, rape, or kill her, I'm sure.

Give her a gun, and she wouldn't pull the trigger. She ends up dead
and another illegal gun ends up on the street. Proper training, my
ass. No amount of training would turn her into a survival-instinct
killer.

Worst case she DOES pull the trigger, it'll be on some poor innocent
unsuspecting black man that's just trying to gas up his car on the
adjacent pump.

I know these types, the "strong, independent, modern woman" who in
reality is so f-d in the head that she's completely helpless and
afraid of her own shadow.

I don't have any evidence that she's irrational. Maybe she's phobic. Maybe
she just doesn't like the smell of gasoline on her clothes. Maybe she is
afraid of being asked to sign a petition.

Whatever. Having a gun nearby may very well give her the confidence she
needs to function in a complex society.

I carry a gun everywhere I go. I now go into biker bars and order a glass of
milk, something I would never have done before.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:43 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
worker bee wrote:

My wife, like yours, hates going to the pump so badly, half the time
she does full serve (if she can find it) or she goes to the well lit
gas station on the busy corner right next to the highway.
For her safety and your peace of mind, not to mention all the hustle
and bustle, encourage your wife to obtain a concealed handgun
license, unless you live in Illinois where you can't, or New Jersey,
Hawaii, and a couple of other places where it's damn near impossible.
In New Jersey, all the stations are full serve. It's illegal to pump
your own gas.

But, this woman is clearly irrational. Any non-white person is a thug
that's looking to rob, rape, or kill her, I'm sure.

Give her a gun, and she wouldn't pull the trigger. She ends up dead
and another illegal gun ends up on the street. Proper training, my
ass. No amount of training would turn her into a survival-instinct
killer.

Worst case she DOES pull the trigger, it'll be on some poor innocent
unsuspecting black man that's just trying to gas up his car on the
adjacent pump.

I know these types, the "strong, independent, modern woman" who in
reality is so f-d in the head that she's completely helpless and
afraid of her own shadow.

I don't have any evidence that she's irrational. Maybe she's phobic. Maybe
she just doesn't like the smell of gasoline on her clothes. Maybe she is
afraid of being asked to sign a petition.

Whatever. Having a gun nearby may very well give her the confidence she
needs to function in a complex society.

I carry a gun everywhere I go. I now go into biker bars and order a glass of
milk, something I would never have done before.


If having a gun encourages you to do things you wouldn't consider without
a gun,
you're asking for trouble.
I see two possibilities.
1) you get shot with your own gun.
2) you end up in jail for shooting someone.
It's your word against 20 bikers.

I went thru a "carrying" phase until I decided that
it was a foolish.

IFF you MUST venture into unsafe areas, like your delivery job
requires it, you might convince yourself it's worth the risk.
IF you CHOOSE to go there, you're being foolish.

On 2011-12-08, dsi1 wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:08*pm, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, dsi1 wrote:

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, *wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

Let's not get sucked into this dopey topic and instead wait and see.
The winner gets to say "I told you so!"

The USA is not a free market. This is why companies seek government to
better their market position whatever it may be.

On 2011-12-08, wrote:
Well said. It's also silly to think that the manufacturers who are
desperate
to survive, would not be all over electric cars if they held an
advantage or
if they were even practical at this point.

I believe the auto manufacturers would toss the oil companies aside the
first chance they got. It would just make life so much more simple for
them and considerably more profitable.

Those looking for a conspiracy should probably concentrate on zero
point energy rather than the automakers.

On 12/8/2011 6:57 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-08, wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:08 pm, wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

Let's not get sucked into this dopey topic and instead wait and see.
The winner gets to say "I told you so!"

The USA is not a free market. This is why companies seek government to
better their market position whatever it may be.



Correct!

And the $64,000 question is:

If you invented a small, compact, 100% efficient battery that would
power a car for 1000 miles, which oil company would be the highest
bidder for the patent rights?

On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 19:14:12 -0500, Moe Gasser
wrote:

On 12/8/2011 6:57 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-08, wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:08 pm, wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

Let's not get sucked into this dopey topic and instead wait and see.
The winner gets to say "I told you so!"

The USA is not a free market. This is why companies seek government to
better their market position whatever it may be.



Correct!

And the $64,000 question is:

If you invented a small, compact, 100% efficient battery that would
power a car for 1000 miles, which oil company would be the highest
bidder for the patent rights?


No oil company could match the royalties you'd make by using the
patent to produce the batteries.
That's the big problem with most "conspiracy" theories.
They fall apart when examined.

--Vic

On 2011-12-09, Moe Gasser wrote:
On 12/8/2011 6:57 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-08, wrote:
On Dec 7, 5:08 pm, wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:

On 12/6/2011 7:05 PM, Brent wrote:
On 2011-12-07, wrote:
You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

A minority so vanishingly small as to not be a factor.

I don't get your point. How can a lot of folks be "vanishingly small?"

Who are these people holding on to vastly out of date technology for
the sake of not changing? How many rotary phones do you see being used?
1970s or earlier cars as daily drivers? The people who just refuse to
change to superior technology because they just don't want to change
are few and far between.

My guess is most people in the automotive industry are scared to death
of the electric car and the changes it will bring. No transmission, no
radiator, an engine that's more like the one in your washing machine, no
exhaust, no cams, no heads, no speed/power tuning, etc. We'll still need
tires though. :-)

The discussion was regarding customers not manufacturers. Manufacturers
don't have a choice in free market conditions. They either adapt or
die. The premise, that I agree with, is that superior product doesn't
need to be forced on any one. If electrics were or become superior then
new companies would quickly displace old companies that refused to
change given free market conditions.

Let's not get sucked into this dopey topic and instead wait and see.
The winner gets to say "I told you so!"

The USA is not a free market. This is why companies seek government to
better their market position whatever it may be.



Correct!

And the $64,000 question is:

If you invented a small, compact, 100% efficient battery that would
power a car for 1000 miles, which oil company would be the highest
bidder for the patent rights?

What makes you think an oil company would buy it or the government
would allow it to be patented?

The problem with a patent is that it is published for all to see. The
US federal government can't invade every country where someone copies
the patent and the local government doesn't shut it down.

This isn't free enterprise we are dealing with in the USA. It's a form
of organized crime. The response would be along the lines of how
organized crime deals with competition. There won't be any bidders. The
inventor will either take a deal he can't refuse (if even offered) or
have an "accident" at worst and considerable regulatory, civil, and
criminal legal problems at best.

On 2011-12-09, Vic Smith wrote:

No oil company could match the royalties you'd make by using the
patent to produce the batteries.
That's the big problem with most "conspiracy" theories.
They fall apart when examined.

There would never be a patent. Government issues patents. Who controls
government?

On 12/8/2011 7:37 PM, Vic Smith wrote:


No oil company could match the royalties you'd make by using the
patent to produce the batteries.
That's the big problem with most "conspiracy" theories.
They fall apart when examined.

--Vic

Bwahahahahhahahhahaaaaa!

ChungFongWang Battery company would copy your battery and you'd go broke
trying to defend your patent.

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:16:58 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 8, 2:06*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 00:12:39 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:









On Dec 7, 4:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 19:11:26 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 10:30:53 -0800 (PST), dsi1
wrote:

On Dec 6, 3:03 am, "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
I think the electric car is being forced on us, by politicians who have
little connection with reality. And want us to have the least effective
consumer goods that can be forced on us. Detergents without phosphate, and
the list goes on from there.

Sure, it might be forced on us but the electric has some advantages so
lets all try to grin and be happy! ?

Nonsense. *If there were advantages, no one would have to force anything on
us.

You might want to rethink your logic. A lot of folks don't care
whether or not there are any advantages. The only advantage they can
see is the advantage of not having to change.

Yeah, that's why those computer thingies never caught on. *what a maroon!
Haha, one of those personal attack babies. ?

No, simple observation. *You've demonstrated that you're an idiot.

What are you? 12 years old? You talk like that to people you don't
know? Your mom never taught you any manners? ?

Old enough to recognize a total moron when I see one. In your case, it took
one post for you to shine.

mike wrote:

I carry a gun everywhere I go. I now go into biker bars and order a
glass of milk, something I would never have done before.


If having a gun encourages you to do things you wouldn't consider
without a gun,
you're asking for trouble.
I see two possibilities.
1) you get shot with your own gun.
2) you end up in jail for shooting someone.
It's your word against 20 bikers.

I went thru a "carrying" phase until I decided that
it was a foolish.

I've used my weapon to ward of would-be robbers in the Home Depot parking
lot! Twice!


IFF you MUST venture into unsafe areas, like your delivery job
requires it, you might convince yourself it's worth the risk.
IF you CHOOSE to go there, you're being foolish.

Disaster doesn't always happen in unsafe areas. Why just today, two people
were shot at the University of Virgina campus, arguably the safest place on
the planet. By that I mean the campus has a RULE against firearms!

No, wait...

Never mind.