| |
Main
Date: 03 Mar 2007 10:47:13
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
little furry animals are here to stay.
There are two versions of it...
bike:
http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
and bus:
http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
or the whole REVOLUTION...
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 17:33:48
From: drydem
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Apr 29, 6:22 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> drydem wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> drydem wrote:
> >>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> >>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> >>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> >>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> >>> hydrogen
> >>> powered electric generators) .
> >> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
> >> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
> >> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
> >> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many solar
> >> cells???
>
> > Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
> > So they are not by themselves an alternate power
> > solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>
> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
Duh. I don't think even Lithion-ion batteries would be a
viable solution for a public utility power grid unless it
was limited to powering something with a low power
drain - e.g. land line telephone circuitry.
Ultra-capacitors[1] - from the little that I heard they sounded
like high voltage/hi power/low leakage capacitors.
I was never able to figure out how much power those
things could handle or how they would be configured
to scaled up power wise. Do you know? What I'd like
to know is their lifespan vs Lithion Ions, e.g. MTBF.
When I first heard of them I just thought they were a
fancy hi quality electrolyic capacitor - being very old
school - the first thing I thought about was cap
leakage ( caps unlike batteries can't hold a charge
for too due to leakage ) I suppose they company
is using some sort of power transistor shunting
device to limit cap leakage - how long it would work
I'm not sure. Controlling the current and voltage levels
is one of the engineering challenges in making a
Hi voltage Hi current Ultra cap.
[1] Ultracapicator are a electrical storage device by EEStor (Texas)
ultracapacitors store energy in an electrical field between two
closely spaced conductors, or plates. When voltage is applied, an
electric charge builds up on each plate. A composition of the barium-
titanate powders is used to store voltage--in the range of 1,200 to
3,500 volts. EEStor claims that an ultracap can store about 280 watt
hours per kilogram. ZENN Motors , a maker of low-speed electric
vehicles, is planning to use Ultracap in its product line. ZENN Motors
is one of EEStor's investors.
source.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/page1/
> > Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
> > point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
> > for our on demand electric utility power needs so
> > a solar array and electric battery array system can't
> > be scaled up for an electric power grid/utility solution.
> > Electric batteries also have a limited lifespan which
> > drives up the cost of a solar array electric generation
> > system.
>
> Look up "Ultra-caps" and you will see where the future of electric power
> storage is going.
I hope this ultracap technology thingy works out.
I would be nice to run the laptop for 24hr straight
without having to recharge it.
>
>
> > Hydrogen fuel cells via hydrogen electric generators
> > can provides electric power on demand. Also hydrogen
> > fuel cells and electric generators can be scaled up
> > engineering wise to theoretically solve power needs
> > of an electric utility grid. Hydrogen could also be
> > created by wind generators or a hydro electric turbine.
> > If the combustion of hydrogen does not produce radioactive
> > waste or CO2 emission either.
>
> You're preaching to the choir with me.
When I saw the hydrogen genny at the solar decathlon was really taken
aback
It was so awesomely cool... .geez I want one of those!!!!!
That's a Jimmy Neutron home!!!
>
>
> > Theoretically, one might use solar/wind power as a
> > way to reduce the energy cost of making biodiesel or
> > ethanol.
>
> Both result in CO2 emissions. Biodiesel and Ethanol still have that
> basic C6H12O6 carbohydrate structure. Only straight Hydrogen burns into
> water vapor. Wind, solar, and hydro can all be used to generate
> electricity to make hydrogen with no pollution. Bio-anything will still
> burn Carbon and make more CO2, even if it is offset by the plants that
> are used recycling the CO2. This will probably go around for another
> 20-30 years before CO2 is taken out of the loop, if then. Right now,
> China is coming up fast as the biggest polluter in the world, so we can
> get clean and they will take up the slack on making pollution.
> Bill Baka
yeah... you're right. sigh.
but I'm soo use to tankin' up the car...
Some habits are hard to break...
Walter
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 02:10:37
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
drydem wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:22 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> drydem wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> drydem wrote:
>>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>>>> hydrogen
>>>>> powered electric generators) .
>>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
>>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many solar
>>>> cells???
>>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
>>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
>>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
>> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>
> Duh. I don't think even Lithion-ion batteries would be a
> viable solution for a public utility power grid unless it
> was limited to powering something with a low power
> drain - e.g. land line telephone circuitry.
Right now Lithium batteries are way too expensive so that takes them out
of the loop financially.
>
> Ultra-capacitors[1] - from the little that I heard they sounded
> like high voltage/hi power/low leakage capacitors.
> I was never able to figure out how much power those
> things could handle or how they would be configured
> to scaled up power wise. Do you know? What I'd like
> to know is their lifespan vs Lithion Ions, e.g. MTBF.
> When I first heard of them I just thought they were a
> fancy hi quality electrolyic capacitor - being very old
> school - the first thing I thought about was cap
> leakage ( caps unlike batteries can't hold a charge
> for too due to leakage ) I suppose they company
> is using some sort of power transistor shunting
> device to limit cap leakage - how long it would work
> I'm not sure. Controlling the current and voltage levels
> is one of the engineering challenges in making a
> Hi voltage Hi current Ultra cap.
What I can tell you without searching is that they were first conceived
as a way to store energy for computers and the CPU current surges, so
the first ones were Farads, not microFarads, at 2 volts or so. Lately
there has been research on stacking them in huge arrays to store energy
for electric buses and other vehicle applications. Bicycles too. They
are inherently very low leakage and capable of big bursts of current, so
they have been proposed 'so far' as battery 'helpers', among other things.
>
>
> [1] Ultracapicator are a electrical storage device by EEStor (Texas)
> ultracapacitors store energy in an electrical field between two
> closely spaced conductors, or plates. When voltage is applied, an
> electric charge builds up on each plate. A composition of the barium-
> titanate powders is used to store voltage--in the range of 1,200 to
> 3,500 volts. EEStor claims that an ultracap can store about 280 watt
> hours per kilogram. ZENN Motors , a maker of low-speed electric
> vehicles, is planning to use Ultracap in its product line. ZENN Motors
> is one of EEStor's investors.
>
> source.
> http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/page1/
Those guys are not the inventors, but just a start-up making big claims.
Ultra-caps are, for now, low voltage and need to be stacked to get any
real voltage, so your source may be in for a lawsuit or two by tagging
their product 'Ultra-caps'.
>
>>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
>>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
>>> for our on demand electric utility power needs so
>>> a solar array and electric battery array system can't
>>> be scaled up for an electric power grid/utility solution.
>>> Electric batteries also have a limited lifespan which
>>> drives up the cost of a solar array electric generation
>>> system.
>> Look up "Ultra-caps" and you will see where the future of electric power
>> storage is going.
>
>
> I hope this ultracap technology thingy works out.
> I would be nice to run the laptop for 24hr straight
> without having to recharge it.
It is headed there. There is very little news and horn-blowing right now
since they are still doing a lot of basic research, but these are newer
even than the organic capacitors 'Oscons?' that came out about 10 years
ago. I used some of those in a 1998 engineering project but never got to
see the finished product since I was 'pushing' the Chinese design house
too hard to meet the specs they said they could meet. I got the boot
from that consulting job for trying too hard to do my job, and make the
Chinese do theirs. Some things you just can't win.
>
>>
>>> Hydrogen fuel cells via hydrogen electric generators
>>> can provides electric power on demand. Also hydrogen
>>> fuel cells and electric generators can be scaled up
>>> engineering wise to theoretically solve power needs
>>> of an electric utility grid. Hydrogen could also be
>>> created by wind generators or a hydro electric turbine.
>>> If the combustion of hydrogen does not produce radioactive
>>> waste or CO2 emission either.
>> You're preaching to the choir with me.
>
>
> When I saw the hydrogen genny at the solar decathlon was really taken
> aback
> It was so awesomely cool... .geez I want one of those!!!!!
> That's a Jimmy Neutron home!!!
And how big was the solar array to make that Hydrogen?
>
>
>>
>>> Theoretically, one might use solar/wind power as a
>>> way to reduce the energy cost of making biodiesel or
>>> ethanol.
>> Both result in CO2 emissions. Biodiesel and Ethanol still have that
>> basic C6H12O6 carbohydrate structure. Only straight Hydrogen burns into
>> water vapor. Wind, solar, and hydro can all be used to generate
>> electricity to make hydrogen with no pollution. Bio-anything will still
>> burn Carbon and make more CO2, even if it is offset by the plants that
>> are used recycling the CO2. This will probably go around for another
>> 20-30 years before CO2 is taken out of the loop, if then. Right now,
>> China is coming up fast as the biggest polluter in the world, so we can
>> get clean and they will take up the slack on making pollution.
>> Bill Baka
>
> yeah... you're right. sigh.
> but I'm soo use to tankin' up the car...
> Some habits are hard to break...
>
> Walter
>
Yeah,
I'm with you on the tanking up, but my hot rod Chrysler takes 26 gallons
of premium so it is getting close to $100 a fill up, hence it sits there
wanting to be driven but waiting for cheaper fill ups.
Even driving my Mazda or Mitsubishi 4 bangers is getting painful, so I
am biking to see my friends unless they want to pick me up, which one
does, in his Lincoln no less.
He claims it gets 17/25 MPG so it isn't that bad, and is actually better
than some new SUVs.
His money.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 12:37:23
From: drydem
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> drydem wrote:
> > I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> > decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> > from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> > fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> > hydrogen
> > powered electric generators) .
>
> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many solar
> cells???
Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
So they are not by themselves an alternate power
solution since they can't provide power on demand.
Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
for our on demand electric utility power needs so
a solar array and electric battery array system can't
be scaled up for an electric power grid/utility solution.
Electric batteries also have a limited lifespan which
drives up the cost of a solar array electric generation
system.
Hydrogen fuel cells via hydrogen electric generators
can provides electric power on demand. Also hydrogen
fuel cells and electric generators can be scaled up
engineering wise to theoretically solve power needs
of an electric utility grid. Hydrogen could also be
created by wind generators or a hydro electric turbine.
If the combustion of hydrogen does not produce radioactive
waste or CO2 emission either.
Theoretically, one might use solar/wind power as a
way to reduce the energy cost of making biodiesel or
ethanol.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 22:22:33
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
drydem wrote:
> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> drydem wrote:
>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>> hydrogen
>>> powered electric generators) .
>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many solar
>> cells???
>
>
> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>
> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
> for our on demand electric utility power needs so
> a solar array and electric battery array system can't
> be scaled up for an electric power grid/utility solution.
> Electric batteries also have a limited lifespan which
> drives up the cost of a solar array electric generation
> system.
Look up "Ultra-caps" and you will see where the future of electric power
storage is going.
>
> Hydrogen fuel cells via hydrogen electric generators
> can provides electric power on demand. Also hydrogen
> fuel cells and electric generators can be scaled up
> engineering wise to theoretically solve power needs
> of an electric utility grid. Hydrogen could also be
> created by wind generators or a hydro electric turbine.
> If the combustion of hydrogen does not produce radioactive
> waste or CO2 emission either.
You're preaching to the choir with me.
>
> Theoretically, one might use solar/wind power as a
> way to reduce the energy cost of making biodiesel or
> ethanol.
Both result in CO2 emissions. Biodiesel and Ethanol still have that
basic C6H12O6 carbohydrate structure. Only straight Hydrogen burns into
water vapor. Wind, solar, and hydro can all be used to generate
electricity to make hydrogen with no pollution. Bio-anything will still
burn Carbon and make more CO2, even if it is offset by the plants that
are used recycling the CO2. This will probably go around for another
20-30 years before CO2 is taken out of the loop, if then. Right now,
China is coming up fast as the biggest polluter in the world, so we can
get clean and they will take up the slack on making pollution.
Bill Baka
>
>
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 23:15:53
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:JU8Zh.3840$H_.50@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> drydem wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> drydem wrote:
> >>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> >>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> >>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> >>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> >>> hydrogen
> >>> powered electric generators) .
> >> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
> >> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
> >> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
> >> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
solar
> >> cells???
> >
> >
> > Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
> > So they are not by themselves an alternate power
> > solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>
> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
> >
> > Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
> > point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
> > for our on demand electric utility power
If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all have
electric cars.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 16:40:43
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:JU8Zh.3840$H_.50@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> drydem wrote:
>>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> drydem wrote:
>>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>>>> hydrogen
>>>>> powered electric generators) .
>>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
>>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
> solar
>>>> cells???
>>>
>>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
>>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
>>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
>> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
>>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
>>> for our on demand electric utility power
>
> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all have
> electric cars.
>
>
Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
Bill (no BS this time) Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 12:09:02
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:92aZh.1977$tp5.1016@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:JU8Zh.3840$H_.50@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> >> drydem wrote:
> >>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> drydem wrote:
> >>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> >>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> >>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> >>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> >>>>> hydrogen
> >>>>> powered electric generators) .
> >>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
> >>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
> >>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
> >>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
> > solar
> >>>> cells???
> >>>
> >>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
> >>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
> >>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
> >> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
> >> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
> >>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
> >>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
> >>> for our on demand electric utility power
> >
> > If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all
have
> > electric cars.
> >
> >
> Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
> charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
> We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
> hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
> type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
> Bill (no BS this time) Baka
Drivel.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 18:00:07
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:92aZh.1977$tp5.1016@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:JU8Zh.3840$H_.50@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> drydem wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> drydem wrote:
>>>>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>>>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>>>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>>>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>>>>>> hydrogen
>>>>>>> powered electric generators) .
>>>>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
>>>>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>>>>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>>>>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
>>> solar
>>>>>> cells???
>>>>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
>>>>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
>>>>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>>>> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
>>>> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>>>>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
>>>>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
>>>>> for our on demand electric utility power
>>> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all
> have
>>> electric cars.
>>>
>>>
>> Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
>> charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
>> We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
>> hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
>> type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
>> Bill (no BS this time) Baka
>
> Drivel.
>
>
I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 00:10:42
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:HeLZh.20496$Um6.6672@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:92aZh.1977$tp5.1016@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:JU8Zh.3840$H_.50@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>> drydem wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> drydem wrote:
> >>>>>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> >>>>>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> >>>>>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> >>>>>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> >>>>>>> hydrogen
> >>>>>>> powered electric generators) .
> >>>>>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles
of
> >>>>>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
> >>>>>> easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
> >>>>>> spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
> >>> solar
> >>>>>> cells???
> >>>>> Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
> >>>>> So they are not by themselves an alternate power
> >>>>> solution since they can't provide power on demand.
> >>>> Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
> >>>> That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
> >>>>> Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
> >>>>> point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
> >>>>> for our on demand electric utility power
> >>> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all
> > have
> >>> electric cars.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
> >> charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
> >> We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
> >> hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
> >> type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
> >> Bill (no BS this time) Baka
> >
> > Drivel.
> >
> >
> I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
> 100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
> I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
> Bill Baka
Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 00:33:19
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HeLZh.20496$Um6.6672@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> Drivel.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
>> 100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
>> I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
I hate to break it to you but they could care less unless it is their
invention. The information is out there but I am not digging around to
prove a rather simple point...technology happens.
I have 75 tabs open now in Firefox, searching, and I am not going to
break it now for you.
Sorry,
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 20:14:43
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HeLZh.20496$Um6.6672@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:92aZh.1977$tp5.1016@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>>George Conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:JU8Zh.3840$H_.50@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>drydem wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Apr 26, 6:32 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>drydem wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>>>>>>>>decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>>>>>>>>hydrogen
>>>>>>>>>powered electric generators) .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles
>
> of
>
>>>>>>>>Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
>>>>>>>>easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
>>>>>>>>spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many
>>>>>
>>>>>solar
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>cells???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Solar cells can't store power and don't provide power at night.
>>>>>>>So they are not by themselves an alternate power
>>>>>>>solution since they can't provide power on demand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please don't give me ammo to give you the "Duh" award.
>>>>>>That is why there are battery banks and Ultra-caps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Unfortunately, electric battery technology is not at a
>>>>>>>point where they provide an adequate storage capacity
>>>>>>>for our on demand electric utility power
>>>>>
>>>>> If batteries were as good as the above poster thinks, we would all
>>>
>>>have
>>>
>>>>>electric cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Read up on "Ultra caps". They have virtually no degradation with
>>>>charge/discharge cycles and rival the best batteries in energy storage.
>>>>We don't all have electric cars because everyone seems to want a few
>>>>hundred horsepower under their right foot. As for power grid use this
>>>>type of cap will stay charged for months due to it's new technology.
>>>>Bill (no BS this time) Baka
>>>
>>>Drivel.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't care if you believe me or not. These things are measured in
>>100's of Farads, not Micro-Farads. Find your own info.
>>I'm not giving pointers to the obvious.
>>Bill Baka
>
>
> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>
>
They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
advantages over the batteries.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 00:35:03
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>
>>
>
> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
> advantages over the batteries.
>
> nate
>
They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite
a while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 20:21:49
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:X0RZh.15819$YL5.12583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>
>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>> advantages over the batteries.
>>
>> nate
>>
> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite a
> while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
1985?
-Amy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 May 2007 19:25:41
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:X0RZh.15819$YL5.12583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>>> advantages over the batteries.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite a
>> while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
>
> I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
> 1985?
>
> -Amy
>
>
Not FLUX capacitors.
Time storage in a bottle?
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 09:31:27
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:EESZh.5399$H84.2252@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:X0RZh.15819$YL5.12583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>>>> advantages over the batteries.
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite
>>> a while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
>>
>> I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
>> 1985?
>>
>> -Amy
> Not FLUX capacitors.
> Time storage in a bottle?
If I could save Time in a bottle
The first thing that Id like to do
Is to save every day
Til Eternity passes away
Just to spend them with you
Don't take it personally, Bill... It's just a song ;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 15:48:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:EESZh.5399$H84.2252@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:X0RZh.15819$YL5.12583@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>> George Conklin wrote:
>>>>>> Quick.....call up Toyota and tell them about this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> They're probably evaluating them already. An ultra-cap does have some
>>>>> advantages over the batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> nate
>>>>>
>>>> They should be. It's the best thing I have seen in capacitors for quite
>>>> a while. At least someone knows what an ultra-cap is.
>>> I don't know... Aren't those the same thing Dr. Emmett Brown was using in
>>> 1985?
>>>
>>> -Amy
>> Not FLUX capacitors.
>> Time storage in a bottle?
>
> If I could save Time in a bottle
> The first thing that Id like to do
> Is to save every day
> Til Eternity passes away
> Just to spend them with you
>
> Don't take it personally, Bill... It's just a song ;-)
>
>
I know, the tune came up in my head. That was a good time for me when
that song came out.
Time flies when you aren't looking.
Bill (rained out day of reminiscence) Baka
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 04:05:41
From: drydem
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 5, 6:22 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com >
wrote:
> On 4, 2:55 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> > > > And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> > > > little furry animals are here to stay.
>
> > > > There are two versions of it...
>
> > > > bike:
>
> > > >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>
> > > > and bus:
>
> > > >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>
> > > OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>
> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>
> > Heaven Help Bus
> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>
> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> > it works.
>
> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> > pipe: a trickle of water.
>
> >http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > some other technologies out there.
>
> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
> How do they make the hydrogen? Do ya suppose their is some energy use
> to make that happen? And is the energy gained higher or lower than the
> energy expense to get the hydrogen?
I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
hydrogen
powered electric generators) . The energy cost to get the
hydrogen is zero since the solar home was a self contain unit.
The drawback was that it only generated electricity when
there's sunlight and it relied on its hydrogen fuel cells to
generate electricity when there wasn't any sun. The hydrogen
fuel cell was bigger than a 21 cubic foot fridge - it was big. From
what
I was told, the hydrogen power subsystem was scavanged from a
surplus stand-alone (?repeater?) microwave tower power unit.
The exhibitors had to go through a significant number of safety
and building code checks/permits due to the large hydrogen fuel cells.
The system was designed and developed by NYIT. It was
amazingly awesome.
http://iris.nyit.edu/solardecathlon2005/pdfs/nyit_sd_energy.pdf
http://www.protonenergy.com/company/hyd-tech/hogen-re/solarhydrogenhome.html
|
| | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 06:32:57
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
drydem wrote:
> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
> hydrogen
> powered electric generators) .
On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could
easily power the entire country. I wonder if the $400 billion or so
spent in Iraq would have paid for the mass production of that many solar
cells???
The energy cost to get the
> hydrogen is zero since the solar home was a self contain unit.
> The drawback was that it only generated electricity when
> there's sunlight and it relied on its hydrogen fuel cells to
> generate electricity when there wasn't any sun. The hydrogen
> fuel cell was bigger than a 21 cubic foot fridge - it was big. From
> what
> I was told, the hydrogen power subsystem was scavanged from a
> surplus stand-alone (?repeater?) microwave tower power unit.
> The exhibitors had to go through a significant number of safety
> and building code checks/permits due to the large hydrogen fuel cells.
> The system was designed and developed by NYIT. It was
> amazingly awesome.
All we need is the commitment to overhaul the nations' power production
and it can be done right now. Add some wind turbines that are made to
actually make power rather than look 'high tech' with the 2 bird killer
vanes and 'problem solved' for now. I did see a funny news piece even if
they did not intend it to be. The reporter was standing in the middle of
a wind farm and all the high tech windmills were stopped dead, yet and
old fashioned farmers windmill was turning over almost full speed.
Makes you wonder if the farmers really had it right, no wind wasted.
Bill Baka
>
> http://iris.nyit.edu/solardecathlon2005/pdfs/nyit_sd_energy.pdf
> http://www.protonenergy.com/company/hyd-tech/hogen-re/solarhydrogenhome.html
>
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 11:09:01
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:HN1Yh.1027$uJ6.956@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> drydem wrote:
>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>> hydrogen
>> powered electric generators) .
>
> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could easily
> power the entire country.
Just like my solar-powered flashlight. It works great when the sun
shines.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2007 23:19:33
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:HN1Yh.1027$uJ6.956@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
>> drydem wrote:
>>> I've seen hydrogen gas created by electrolysis at the last solar
>>> decathlon. A large solar array was used to create hydrogen
>>> from water via electrolysis and it was store in a hydrogen
>>> fuel cell storage facility (which acted like a battery for the
>>> hydrogen
>>> powered electric generators) .
>> On a more massive scale, one study showed that if 100 square miles of
>> Arizona desert could be covered in present day solar cells it could easily
>> power the entire country.
>
> Just like my solar-powered flashlight. It works great when the sun
> shines.
>
>
>
Those are 4-real though. Set it in the sun during the day and use it at
night. About $30 gets you one.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 12:48:26
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 4, 4:24 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. What
> else is new?
That now is happening too much too soon, and that we largely have the
power to prevent it.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:11:49
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175802506.121481.33220@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 4:24 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
What
> > else is new?
>
> That now is happening too much too soon, and that we largely have the
> power to prevent it.
>
>
The last ice age ended without human effort and warming has gone on since.
It will not reverse for another 10,000 years either.
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 13:22:44
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: dreams of a better future
|
Since "it doesn't cost anything to dream," we may dream of a better
future --perhaps when THE REVOLUTION becomes a reality. Anyway, I hope
it happens before man-made Armageddon...
Cities of Joy
By Jay Walljasper
Enrique Pe=F1alosa, former mayor of Bogot=E1, believes that one day cities
of the developing world will offer us lessons about providing everyone
with equal access to happiness.
It feels a bit strange to be sitting in the middle of one of the
world's wealthiest neighborhoods, and to be so thoroughly engrossed in
conversation about the prospects of poor cities across the planet. But
here, in an office building at New York University on the island of
Manhattan, is where former Bogot=E1 mayor Enrique Pe=F1alosa is working on
a book about how life can be improved for people in mega-cities of the
developing world. That is, when he's not in Beijing or Delhi or Dar-es-
Salaam or Jakarta or Mexico City sharing his visionary plans with
local leaders.
Pe=F1alosa's ideas stand as beacon of hope for cities of the South,
which will absorb much of the world's population growth over the next
half-century. These are places with the usual complications of rapid
urban expansion--pollution, public health, slums, crime, unemployment,
sprawl, corruption, traffic, all of which are aggravated by the fact
that most of these cities' citizens live in deep poverty. Based on his
experiences in Bogot=E1, however, Pe=F1alosa believes it's a major mistake
to give up on these places, no matter how out-of-control their
problems appear.
"If we in the Third World measure our success or failure as a society
in terms of income, we would have to classify ourselves as losers
until the end of time," declares Pe=F1alosa, a tall man in casual
clothes with salt-and-pepper hair and trim beard, who looks more like
a coach than a politician or professor. "With our limited resources,
we have to invent other ways to measure success. This might mean that
all kids have access to sports facilities, libraries, parks, schools,
nurseries."
.=2E.
Opening the window and gazing down at sidewalks filled with people, he
says, "I love New York. I feel so much energy here. But there is so
much more that you could do: pedestrian streets, more parks, bikeways,
open up the waterfronts. The old sections of European cities are very
beautiful. The closest thing you'll see to what I am talking about are
Danish or Dutch cities, but even they could be improved. They need a
network of pedestrian streets through the whole city, not just the
center, and they need more sports facilities and parks and green
space. We could do all these things in Bogot=E1 and other developing
cities. I think you can have a city that combines the best of suburbs
and the best of old cities.
"In Spanish we have this saying that it doesn't cost anything to
dream," he notes, "So I say let's play. Let's just imagine how you
want your home to be. How you want your kids to live. Do you want to
walk or drive to get bread? That's the basis of thinking about cities.
We have not given enough thought to how we live. We have left too many
of these decisions to others."
A more serious look now crosses his face. "Ninety-nine percent of
Third World people have never seen a Dutch or Danish city, where you
see people on bikes everywhere. A city full of cars is not a good
model for us."
"The images we get from the United States are a very damaging model to
Third World cities," he continues. "We need to avoid undesirable
developments such an urban sprawl. People in the U.S. now recognize
there are problems with building cities for cars and not for people,
and we in the Third World need to know that. Pedestrians and
bicyclists should be given as much importance as motor-vehicles; even
more so in developing country cities, where most households don't own
cars."
more...
http://www.pps.org/info/newsletter/november2004/november2004_joy
|
| |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 11:53:25
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> > aspects of this predicament.
>
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
> exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them talking
> up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
> somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be Iran
> or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
> one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> Don't tell Bush.
> It would ruin his ego trip.
> Bill Baka
I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
So what's the solution, other than bringing down a tyrant?
http://www.new-enlightenment.com/completing2.htm
|
| | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:31:41
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: CHAOS IS GOOD, PLANNING IS BAD!
|
On Apr 6, 7:34 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> > Then you should quit complaining that people on a forum called
> > alt.planning.urban want to discuss urban planning. If you have nothing to
> > add to the discussion of the topic this was set up to discuss, why are you
> > even here?
>
> Urban planning is only about St Growth. We need to plan for what
> people really want, not for what you want to do to them.
Are you for legalizing drugs? Your logic tells me you do. Perhaps you
are against planning everything, and you just are unprepared for, say,
a hurricane or an earthquake. Hey, you were proved right in New
Orleans... :(
Your motto: CHAOS IS GOOD, PLANNING IS BAD!
|
| | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 19:35:07
From: Pat
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
> >> > Chevrolet
> >> >> > makes cars.
>
> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if
> >> >> you
> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>
> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to go,
> >> > like
> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is not
> >> > what
> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>
> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other
> > ideas
> >> on formulating urban plans?
>
> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that the
> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> > board
> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
> > spend
> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It happens
> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > everyone's
> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things get
> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well, even
> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can have
> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do (he
> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision? 5
> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand,
> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future.
>
> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
"I'm ster than you and know what is better" school that most
planners subscribe to.
Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
Also, if you try, ster people (and there are always ster people)
will find away around any reg you can imaging.
So if you tell people what to do, it won't work. If you reward people
for "good" actions, it might partially work. If you tryp to slightly
alter what people want to do, you might accomplish something. But if
people want to drive to homes in the suburbs, they will, no matter
what YOU want. That's the school I subscribe to.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:40:29
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175826907.068442.194810@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
> > >> > Chevrolet
> > >> >> > makes cars.
> >
> > >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
way if
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >
> > >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to
go,
> > >> > like
> > >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
not
> > >> > what
> > >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
> >
> > >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
other
> > > ideas
> > >> on formulating urban plans?
> >
> > > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that
the
> > > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> > > board
> > > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
> > > spend
> > > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
happens
> > > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > > everyone's
> > > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
get
> > > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
even
> > > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
have
> > > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
(he
> > > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
commision? 5
> > > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
grand,
> > > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
future.
> >
> > So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.- Hide
quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
> planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
> School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
> "I'm ster than you and know what is better" school that most
> planners subscribe to.
>
> Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
> people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
> The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
> closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
> do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
> influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
> elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
> Also, if you try, ster people (and there are always ster people)
> will find away around any reg you can imaging.
>
Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning fails.
It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should look.
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/jentsch.htm
Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with St Growth in
various jurisdictions as a planner.
> So if you tell people what to do, it won't work. If you reward people
> for "good" actions, it might partially work. If you tryp to slightly
> alter what people want to do, you might accomplish something. But if
> people want to drive to homes in the suburbs, they will, no matter
> what YOU want. That's the school I subscribe to.
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 08:05:41
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:NkqRh.96$3P3.95@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
>> I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
>> planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
>> School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
>> "I'm ster than you and know what is better" school that most
>> planners subscribe to.
>>
>> Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
>> people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
>> The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
>> closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
>> do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
>> influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
>> elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
>> Also, if you try, ster people (and there are always ster people)
>> will find away around any reg you can imaging.
>>
>
> Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning
> fails.
> It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should
> look.
> http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/jentsch.htm
>
> Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with St Growth in
> various jurisdictions as a planner.
You know I find it impossible to take anything seriously in your little
newspaper. The editorial quality is a joke.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:08:19
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
>>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>>> aspects of this predicament.
>>> Jobst Brandt
>> You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
>> exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them talking
>> up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
>> somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be Iran
>> or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
>> one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
>> Don't tell Bush.
>> It would ruin his ego trip.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
>
> So what's the solution, other than bringing down a tyrant?
>
> http://www.new-enlightenment.com/completing2.htm
>
Heh, heh, I like the comparison. What is scary is that someone told me
that a wartime president can declare himself president under some
antique war powers law. Cancel the election, Herr Bush is still here.
Things like that give me bad dreams. Stupid growth is what happened in
the Chicago area, or 'Chicagoland' as they now call it. The Metra rail
system runs out from the city like spokes in a wheel and has caused the
sprawl to be anything within about 40 miles.
Growth. Wunnnerfull.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 21:29:32
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:TuyQh.12007$JZ3.9194@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> >>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> >>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> >>> aspects of this predicament.
> >>> Jobst Brandt
> >> You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
> >> exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them talking
> >> up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
> >> somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be Iran
> >> or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
> >> one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> >> Don't tell Bush.
> >> It would ruin his ego trip.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
> > worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
> >
> > So what's the solution, other than bringing down a tyrant?
> >
> > http://www.new-enlightenment.com/completing2.htm
> >
> Heh, heh, I like the comparison. What is scary is that someone told me
> that a wartime president can declare himself president under some
> antique war powers law. Cancel the election, Herr Bush is still here.
> Things like that give me bad dreams. Stupid growth is what happened in
> the Chicago area, or 'Chicagoland' as they now call it. The Metra rail
> system runs out from the city like spokes in a wheel and has caused the
> sprawl to be anything within about 40 miles.
> Growth. Wunnnerfull.
> Bill Baka
Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that people do
not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing problems.
Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:37:09
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 6, 7:40 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:1175826907.068442.194810@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > > >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> > > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
> > > >> > Chevrolet
> > > >> >> > makes cars.
>
> > > >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
> way if
> > > >> >> you
> > > >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>
> > > >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to
> go,
> > > >> > like
> > > >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
> not
> > > >> > what
> > > >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>
> > > >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> other
> > > > ideas
> > > >> on formulating urban plans?
>
> > > > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that
> the
> > > > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> > > > board
> > > > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
> > > > spend
> > > > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> happens
> > > > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > > > everyone's
> > > > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
> get
> > > > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
> even
> > > > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
> have
> > > > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
> (he
> > > > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> commision? 5
> > > > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> grand,
> > > > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> future.
>
> > > So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.- Hide
> quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
> > planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
> > School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
> > "I'm ster than you and know what is better" school that most
> > planners subscribe to.
>
> > Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
> > people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
> > The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
> > closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
> > do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
> > influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
> > elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
> > Also, if you try, ster people (and there are always ster people)
> > will find away around any reg you can imaging.
>
> Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning fails.
> It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should look.http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/jentsch.htm
>
> Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with St Growth in
> various jurisdictions as a planner.
This should be an interesting read too...
Sprawl Costs Us All
Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
planning and development.
"Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
consumers, have to pay."
http://www.stergrowth.net/issues/landuse/sprawl/costofsprawl.htm
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:35:14
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175895429.225783.143220@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 7:40 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1175826907.068442.194810@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 5, 8:09 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> > > <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> > > > >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > > >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > > >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
only
> > > > >> > Chevrolet
> > > > >> >> > makes cars.
> >
> > > > >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the
only
> > way if
> > > > >> >> you
> > > > >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >
> > > > >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only
way to
> > go,
> > > > >> > like
> > > > >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future
is
> > not
> > > > >> > what
> > > > >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
> >
> > > > >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> > other
> > > > > ideas
> > > > >> on formulating urban plans?
> >
> > > > > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
that
> > the
> > > > > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
planning
> > > > > board
> > > > > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
then
> > > > > spend
> > > > > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> > happens
> > > > > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > > > > everyone's
> > > > > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
things
> > get
> > > > > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite
well,
> > even
> > > > > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we
can
> > have
> > > > > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would
do
> > (he
> > > > > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> > commision? 5
> > > > > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> > grand,
> > > > > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> > future.
> >
> > > > So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > I personally subscribe to the "You can't push one a string" school of
> > > planning. It is similar to the "You can't Turn the River Around
> > > School" but there are subtle differences. Neither are close to the
> > > "I'm ster than you and know what is better" school that most
> > > planners subscribe to.
> >
> > > Planning doesn't, in general, work because planners are trying to tell
> > > people what to do. You just can't do that with very much success.
> > > The best you can do is to influence them is subtle ways to make things
> > > closer to your ideal of better. If people want McMansions (hint, they
> > > do) then you can' stop that. Them best you can do is have subtle
> > > influence of how and where they are built. If you try too much, the
> > > elected officials will (rightly) put the kabosh on what you want.
> > > Also, if you try, ster people (and there are always ster people)
> > > will find away around any reg you can imaging.
> >
> > Actually look at the article on Sociation Today about why planning
fails.
> > It fails because it is based on an obsolete model of how a city should
look.http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v42/jentsch.htm
> >
> > Jentsch is a former professor of planning who worked with St Growth
in
> > various jurisdictions as a planner.
>
> This should be an interesting read too...
>
> Sprawl Costs Us All
>
> Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
> result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
> But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
> planning and development.
>
> "Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
> can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
> dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
> consumers, have to pay."
>
> http://www.stergrowth.net/issues/landuse/sprawl/costofsprawl.htm
>
St Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to pay
for a developer's schemes.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:25:39
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:CWzRh.314$3P3.251@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175895429.225783.143220@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
<please learn to snip >
>> Sprawl Costs Us All
>>
>> Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
>> result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
>> But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
>> planning and development.
>>
>> "Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
>> can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
>> dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
>> consumers, have to pay."
>>
>> http://www.stergrowth.net/issues/landuse/sprawl/costofsprawl.htm
>>
>
> St Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to
> pay
> for a developer's schemes.
All developers try to get other people (especially taxpayers) to pay for as
much of what they are building as they can. This is not unique to any one
school of thought. St Growth is just a convenient label, both for
developers and critics, because it is the only school of thought that has a
name. So all developers will try to call their developers St Growth if
they think they can find an advantage in it (even if they actually are not
applying st growth principles), and all critics will be quick to label
anything they don't like st growth, because it's much easier to criticize
something if you can label it.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 11:59:03
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:GaERh.28995$_a1.11920@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:CWzRh.314$3P3.251@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1175895429.225783.143220@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> <please learn to snip>
>
> >> Sprawl Costs Us All
> >>
> >> Many people think that sprawl (or scattered growth) is an inevitable
> >> result of an economic system that demands lower costs and efficiency.
> >> But this is a myth: sprawl development costs more than careful
> >> planning and development.
> >>
> >> "Sprawl is cheaper for developers than careful planning because they
> >> can pass much of the cost on to taxpayers. The real cost of sprawl is
> >> dispersed through a range of other costs that we, as citizens and
> >> consumers, have to pay."
> >>
> >> http://www.stergrowth.net/issues/landuse/sprawl/costofsprawl.htm
> >>
> >
> > St Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer to
> > pay
> > for a developer's schemes.
>
> All developers try to get other people (especially taxpayers) to pay for
as
> much of what they are building as they can. This is not unique to any one
> school of thought. St Growth is just a convenient label, both for
> developers and critics, because it is the only school of thought that has
a
> name.
Label pasting is not progress.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 21:01:21
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <CWzRh.314$3P3.251@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
> St Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer
> to pay for a developer's schemes.
Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before
"st growth."
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 02:08:22
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-2EF3FB.21012106042007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <CWzRh.314$3P3.251@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > St Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer
> > to pay for a developer's schemes.
>
> Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before
> "st growth."
True, but st growth is just the latest scam.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:01:45
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> Heh, heh, I like the comparison. What is scary is that someone told me
>> that a wartime president can declare himself president under some
>> antique war powers law. Cancel the election, Herr Bush is still here.
>> Things like that give me bad dreams. Stupid growth is what happened in
>> the Chicago area, or 'Chicagoland' as they now call it. The Metra rail
>> system runs out from the city like spokes in a wheel and has caused the
>> sprawl to be anything within about 40 miles.
>> Growth. Wunnnerfull.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that people do
> not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing problems.
> Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
I was born in Chicago and know all the tricks. Take a train into the
city, hop an 'el' with an all day pass. Get as close as you can to your
destination and then find a bus.That got me from Arlington heights to
wherever I wanted to go. This was my Freshman year and I took a friend
who was also an overachiever and we went to the museums, both Field and
Science and Industry. You can spend days in each. They are almost as big
as the Smithsonian.
OK,
Back on topic.
Chicago could not have evolved the way it is, big, and the traffic jams
that followed.
Every week I was there it was an almost daily news item about somebody
trying to run and beat the train, but got hit, usually killing everyone
in the car.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:52:39
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:t3IQh.5561$Kd3.2770@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> Heh, heh, I like the comparison. What is scary is that someone told me
> >> that a wartime president can declare himself president under some
> >> antique war powers law. Cancel the election, Herr Bush is still here.
> >> Things like that give me bad dreams. Stupid growth is what happened in
> >> the Chicago area, or 'Chicagoland' as they now call it. The Metra rail
> >> system runs out from the city like spokes in a wheel and has caused the
> >> sprawl to be anything within about 40 miles.
> >> Growth. Wunnnerfull.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that people
do
> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
problems.
> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>
> I was born in Chicago and know all the tricks. Take a train into the
> city, hop an 'el' with an all day pass. Get as close as you can to your
> destination and then find a bus.That got me from Arlington heights to
> wherever I wanted to go. This was my Freshman year and I took a friend
> who was also an overachiever and we went to the museums, both Field and
> Science and Industry. You can spend days in each. They are almost as big
> as the Smithsonian.
> OK,
> Back on topic.
> Chicago could not have evolved the way it is, big, and the traffic jams
> that followed.
> Every week I was there it was an almost daily news item about somebody
> trying to run and beat the train, but got hit, usually killing everyone
> in the car.
> Bill Baka
>
Cities like Chicago has been criticized for congestion from the start. NYC
had world-tying traffic jams by 1880. Just look at the book Gotham to see
how people complained about congestion. Subways? Like Chicago: You could
ride all day and yes I knew the tricks too. But it did not hide the fact it
was a slow way to get around. I could ride a bus, take the subway for
awhile, and then go back to the bus with a school pass.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 13:13:51
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:t3IQh.5561$Kd3.2770@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> OK,
>> Back on topic.
>> Chicago could not have evolved the way it is, big, and the traffic jams
>> that followed.
>> Every week I was there it was an almost daily news item about somebody
>> trying to run and beat the train, but got hit, usually killing everyone
>> in the car.
>> Bill Baka
>>
>
> Cities like Chicago has been criticized for congestion from the start. NYC
> had world-tying traffic jams by 1880. Just look at the book Gotham to see
> how people complained about congestion. Subways? Like Chicago: You could
> ride all day and yes I knew the tricks too. But it did not hide the fact it
> was a slow way to get around. I could ride a bus, take the subway for
> awhile, and then go back to the bus with a school pass.
>
>
Chicago has always been a 'Hub' city right in the middle of all the
national action. They designed a system way back when, 1890 or so, after
the fire, so at least there is a good infrastructure. The obvious
fastest way to get around is on a powered bike, a regular motorcycle or
an electric hybrid. Chicago is big enough to fry yourself doing
everything by bike. If you had a folding bike that you could take on the
public grid you could get near enough to ride the rest. The only reason
that Chicago has managed to get so big is the Metra-rail system. It
takes a train load of double decker passenger cars 50 miles out at about
80 MPH and dumps them were their cars are parked to create a local
traffic jam. They have just managed to spread out the rush hour effect
to a 50 mile radius, hence the term 'Chicagoland'. It's too much real
estate to just call Chicago anymore.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:14:25
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:jwNQh.5574$Kd3.3459@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:t3IQh.5561$Kd3.2770@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >> OK,
> >> Back on topic.
> >> Chicago could not have evolved the way it is, big, and the traffic jams
> >> that followed.
> >> Every week I was there it was an almost daily news item about somebody
> >> trying to run and beat the train, but got hit, usually killing everyone
> >> in the car.
> >> Bill Baka
> >>
> >
> > Cities like Chicago has been criticized for congestion from the start.
NYC
> > had world-tying traffic jams by 1880. Just look at the book Gotham to
see
> > how people complained about congestion. Subways? Like Chicago: You
could
> > ride all day and yes I knew the tricks too. But it did not hide the
fact it
> > was a slow way to get around. I could ride a bus, take the subway for
> > awhile, and then go back to the bus with a school pass.
> >
> >
> Chicago has always been a 'Hub' city right in the middle of all the
> national action. They designed a system way back when, 1890 or so, after
> the fire, so at least there is a good infrastructure. The obvious
> fastest way to get around is on a powered bike, a regular motorcycle or
> an electric hybrid. Chicago is big enough to fry yourself doing
> everything by bike. If you had a folding bike that you could take on the
> public grid you could get near enough to ride the rest. The only reason
> that Chicago has managed to get so big is the Metra-rail system. It
> takes a train load of double decker passenger cars 50 miles out at about
> 80 MPH and dumps them were their cars are parked to create a local
> traffic jam. They have just managed to spread out the rush hour effect
> to a 50 mile radius, hence the term 'Chicagoland'. It's too much real
> estate to just call Chicago anymore.
> Bill Baka
Bill, until the electric trolleys, the effective radius of Chicago was 3.2
miles. Almost immediately the effective radius went to 12 miles (about 1
hour trip). You need to study some urban history. The modern city could
not exist without mechanized transport. Sears located there because there
were 14 rail lines. Chicago was built as a railroad city, and otherwise it
has no real claim to fame. It is a mechanized city and always was.
Walking? Forget it. Bicycles? No it was the trolley system.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 14:46:00
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jwNQh.5574$Kd3.3459@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:t3IQh.5561$Kd3.2770@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> OK,
>>>> Back on topic.
>>>> Chicago could not have evolved the way it is, big, and the traffic jams
>>>> that followed.
>>>> Every week I was there it was an almost daily news item about somebody
>>>> trying to run and beat the train, but got hit, usually killing everyone
>>>> in the car.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>
>>> Cities like Chicago has been criticized for congestion from the start.
> NYC
>>> had world-tying traffic jams by 1880. Just look at the book Gotham to
> see
>>> how people complained about congestion. Subways? Like Chicago: You
> could
>>> ride all day and yes I knew the tricks too. But it did not hide the
> fact it
>>> was a slow way to get around. I could ride a bus, take the subway for
>>> awhile, and then go back to the bus with a school pass.
>>>
>>>
>> Chicago has always been a 'Hub' city right in the middle of all the
>> national action. They designed a system way back when, 1890 or so, after
>> the fire, so at least there is a good infrastructure. The obvious
>> fastest way to get around is on a powered bike, a regular motorcycle or
>> an electric hybrid. Chicago is big enough to fry yourself doing
>> everything by bike. If you had a folding bike that you could take on the
>> public grid you could get near enough to ride the rest. The only reason
>> that Chicago has managed to get so big is the Metra-rail system. It
>> takes a train load of double decker passenger cars 50 miles out at about
>> 80 MPH and dumps them were their cars are parked to create a local
>> traffic jam. They have just managed to spread out the rush hour effect
>> to a 50 mile radius, hence the term 'Chicagoland'. It's too much real
>> estate to just call Chicago anymore.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Bill, until the electric trolleys, the effective radius of Chicago was 3.2
> miles. Almost immediately the effective radius went to 12 miles (about 1
> hour trip). You need to study some urban history.
My father was born there in 1918 so I am a second generation Chicagoan.
He knew Al Capone when he was growing up there in the roaring 20's, and
the original gang violence and the invention of the drive by shooting.
He said it was interesting but not a good place for a kid to be out in.
There is also the fact that there have been commuter trains since way
before I was born and those alone made the radius of Chicago a bit more.
I remember when I was about 5 (1953) watching the steam locomotives
pulling about 5-8 passenger cars into the city, so the idea of train
commute is not new. As far as the exact history of what went in when, I
don't know, and it just isn't that much of an interest to me, since the
somewhat idyllic conditions I grew up with don't exist anymore due to
SPRAWL.
Bill Baka
The modern city could
> not exist without mechanized transport. Sears located there because there
> were 14 rail lines. Chicago was built as a railroad city, and otherwise it
> has no real claim to fame. It is a mechanized city and always was.
> Walking? Forget it. Bicycles? No it was the trolley system.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:55:40
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:UUUQh.1445$w41.1067@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:jwNQh.5574$Kd3.3459@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:t3IQh.5561$Kd3.2770@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>> OK,
> >>>> Back on topic.
> >>>> Chicago could not have evolved the way it is, big, and the traffic
jams
> >>>> that followed.
> >>>> Every week I was there it was an almost daily news item about
somebody
> >>>> trying to run and beat the train, but got hit, usually killing
everyone
> >>>> in the car.
> >>>> Bill Baka
> >>>>
> >>> Cities like Chicago has been criticized for congestion from the start.
> > NYC
> >>> had world-tying traffic jams by 1880. Just look at the book Gotham to
> > see
> >>> how people complained about congestion. Subways? Like Chicago: You
> > could
> >>> ride all day and yes I knew the tricks too. But it did not hide the
> > fact it
> >>> was a slow way to get around. I could ride a bus, take the subway for
> >>> awhile, and then go back to the bus with a school pass.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Chicago has always been a 'Hub' city right in the middle of all the
> >> national action. They designed a system way back when, 1890 or so,
after
> >> the fire, so at least there is a good infrastructure. The obvious
> >> fastest way to get around is on a powered bike, a regular motorcycle or
> >> an electric hybrid. Chicago is big enough to fry yourself doing
> >> everything by bike. If you had a folding bike that you could take on
the
> >> public grid you could get near enough to ride the rest. The only reason
> >> that Chicago has managed to get so big is the Metra-rail system. It
> >> takes a train load of double decker passenger cars 50 miles out at
about
> >> 80 MPH and dumps them were their cars are parked to create a local
> >> traffic jam. They have just managed to spread out the rush hour effect
> >> to a 50 mile radius, hence the term 'Chicagoland'. It's too much real
> >> estate to just call Chicago anymore.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > Bill, until the electric trolleys, the effective radius of Chicago was
3.2
> > miles. Almost immediately the effective radius went to 12 miles (about
1
> > hour trip). You need to study some urban history.
>
> My father was born there in 1918 so I am a second generation Chicagoan.
> He knew Al Capone when he was growing up there in the roaring 20's, and
> the original gang violence and the invention of the drive by shooting.
> He said it was interesting but not a good place for a kid to be out in.
> There is also the fact that there have been commuter trains since way
> before I was born and those alone made the radius of Chicago a bit more.
> I remember when I was about 5 (1953) watching the steam locomotives
> pulling about 5-8 passenger cars into the city, so the idea of train
> commute is not new. As far as the exact history of what went in when, I
> don't know, and it just isn't that much of an interest to me, since the
> somewhat idyllic conditions I grew up with don't exist anymore due to
> SPRAWL.
> Bill Baka
>
No Bill, those trains were the sprawl of their era. Actually it was the
trolley system which changed things big time.
> The modern city could
> > not exist without mechanized transport. Sears located there because
there
> > were 14 rail lines. Chicago was built as a railroad city, and otherwise
it
> > has no real claim to fame. It is a mechanized city and always was.
> > Walking? Forget it. Bicycles? No it was the trolley system.
> >
> >
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 05:40:05
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> There is also the fact that there have been commuter trains since way
>> before I was born and those alone made the radius of Chicago a bit more.
>> I remember when I was about 5 (1953) watching the steam locomotives
>> pulling about 5-8 passenger cars into the city, so the idea of train
>> commute is not new. As far as the exact history of what went in when, I
>> don't know, and it just isn't that much of an interest to me, since the
>> somewhat idyllic conditions I grew up with don't exist anymore due to
>> SPRAWL.
>> Bill Baka
>>
>
<snip huge thread >
> No Bill, those trains were the sprawl of their era. Actually it was the
> trolley system which changed things big time.
>> The modern city could
>>> not exist without mechanized transport. Sears located there because
> there
>>> were 14 rail lines. Chicago was built as a railroad city, and otherwise
> it
>>> has no real claim to fame. It is a mechanized city and always was.
I think it was designed just exactly to be the rail hub of the nation,
so all those rail lines got put to good use for commuters. I do remember
something like trolleys in the inner city back in the 50's but then my
dad was driving me around at that time. It was train, el, trolley, or
bus, with either a cab or some walking at each end.
In 1962 I took a double decker train into town with a high school friend
and we went from train to el to bus (trolley?) to the Museum of Science
and Industry and saw about 20% of it. Walking was possible but why when
there were bus stops every 3 blocks?
The trolley may have been there from the turn of the century since it
probably pre-dates me and my father. When we moved to California from
the Chicago area my first impression was that public transit sucked big
time, and as far as I know it still does.
>>> Walking? Forget it. Bicycles? No it was the trolley system.
My grandmother used to use one of those 3 wheel bicycles and my
grandfather just used the transit system to get to work. I don't recall
my grandparents ever even owning a car. Maybe it really was not a fact
of life in their reality. Could be why my grandmother almost made 100,
so that can't be a bad thing.
More questions than answers, but who knows it all, not me.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 10:51:11
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:VY%Qh.5182$u03.3298@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> There is also the fact that there have been commuter trains since way
> >> before I was born and those alone made the radius of Chicago a bit
more.
> >> I remember when I was about 5 (1953) watching the steam locomotives
> >> pulling about 5-8 passenger cars into the city, so the idea of train
> >> commute is not new. As far as the exact history of what went in when, I
> >> don't know, and it just isn't that much of an interest to me, since the
> >> somewhat idyllic conditions I grew up with don't exist anymore due to
> >> SPRAWL.
> >> Bill Baka
> >>
> >
> <snip huge thread>
> > No Bill, those trains were the sprawl of their era. Actually it was the
> > trolley system which changed things big time.
> >> The modern city could
> >>> not exist without mechanized transport. Sears located there because
> > there
> >>> were 14 rail lines. Chicago was built as a railroad city, and
otherwise
> > it
> >>> has no real claim to fame. It is a mechanized city and always was.
>
> I think it was designed just exactly to be the rail hub of the nation,
> so all those rail lines got put to good use for commuters.
The city was not set up for commuters. It was a national transportation
hub for freight.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 15:30:22
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that people do
> not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing problems.
> Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked better
when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
near where you worked. Those times are long gone. Proposition 13 makes
it extremely undesirable to move when you change jobs, i.e. if I moved
to an equivalent value house to the one I'm in, my property tax would go
up by about $7000 per year, to $14,000.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 19:38:13
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175893792.140957.161350@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "Chris" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:Xns990957DA71E3Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
>
> > > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > > >news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > > > > "Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > >news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> > > > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > > > >> <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >> >"Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> > > > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
> > > > >> >> corners
> > > > >> >except
> > > > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > > > >> >> factories
> > > > > all
> > > > >> >over
> > > > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk
> to
> > > > >> >> work.
> > > > >> >There's
> > > > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
> > > > >> >> traffic
> > > > > a
> > > > >> >bit,
> > > > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > > > >> >> whistles,
> > > > > and
> > > > >> >use
> > > > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
>
> > > > >> >> Dave Head
>
> > > > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> > > > > business
> > > > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global
> competition.
>
> > > > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
> > > > >> exactly
> > > > > how?
>
> > > > >> DPH
>
> > > > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> > > > > close enough.
>
> > > > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > > > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
>
> > > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
> have
> > > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
> impossible in
> > > 1890 too.-
>
> > It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.
>
> > By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...
>
> It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the
> walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.
I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist
Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 11:57:31
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"John Kane" <jrkrideau@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175913493.051700.153450@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 6:28 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1175893792.140957.161350@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Chris" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:Xns990957DA71E3Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
> >
> > > > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > > > >news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >
> > > > > > "Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> > > > > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > > > > >> <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> >"Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> > > > > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in
all
> > > > > >> >> corners
> > > > > >> >except
> > > > > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > > > > >> >> factories
> > > > > > all
> > > > > >> >over
> > > > > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can
walk
> > to
> > > > > >> >> work.
> > > > > >> >There's
> > > > > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by
truck
> > > > > >> >> traffic
> > > > > > a
> > > > > >> >bit,
> > > > > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > > > > >> >> whistles,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > >> >use
> > > > > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
> >
> > > > > >> >> Dave Head
> >
> > > > > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going
out of
> > > > > > business
> > > > > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global
> > competition.
> >
> > > > > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to
work
> > > > > >> exactly
> > > > > > how?
> >
> > > > > >> DPH
> >
> > > > > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That
is
> > > > > > close enough.
> >
> > > > > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > > > > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
> >
> > > > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You
cannot
> > have
> > > > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
> > impossible in
> > > > 1890 too.-
> >
> > > It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.
> >
> > > By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...
> >
> > It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended
the
> > walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.
>
> I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist
> Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
I read honest demography, not propaganda.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 17:35:13
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:LGLRh.509$3P3.487@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...
>> I take it that you have never read "The Revenge of the Methodist
>> Biycle Company"? John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>>
>
> I read honest demography, not propaganda.
Translation: I only read things I know in advance will support the viewpoint
I already had.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:15:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 5, 7:57 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vffRh.28410$_a1.11888@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > >news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
> > >> >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> > >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
> only
> > >> >> > Chevrolet
> > >> >> >> > makes cars.
>
> > >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
> way
> > > if
> > >> >> >> you
> > >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>
> > >> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way
> to
> > > go,
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
> > > not
> > >> >> > what
> > >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>
> > >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> other
> > >> > ideas
> > >> >> on formulating urban plans?
>
> > >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
> that
> > > the
> > >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> > >> > board
> > >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
> then
> > >> > spend
> > >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> > > happens
> > >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > >> > everyone's
> > >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
> > > get
> > >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
> > >> > even
> > >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
> > >> > have
> > >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
> > > (he
> > >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> commision?
> > > 5
> > >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> grand,
> > >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> future.
>
> > >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
>
> > > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
>
> > If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer some
> > better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was, given
> > all she accomplished.
>
> You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
> Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
> said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise what
> is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome of
> hate which always praises the past
Or perhaps it's a syndrome of common sense when you have 6 and 1/2
billion inhabitants on this planet.
150 years ago it was...
1850... 1.2 billion
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:27:18
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175894142.623045.130370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 7:57 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:vffRh.28410$_a1.11888@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> > > >news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > >>news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> > message
> > > >> >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >
> > > >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > >> >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
> > only
> > > >> >> > Chevrolet
> > > >> >> >> > makes cars.
> >
> > > >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the
only
> > way
> > > > if
> > > >> >> >> you
> > > >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >
> > > >> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only
way
> > to
> > > > go,
> > > >> >> > like
> > > >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The
future is
> > > > not
> > > >> >> > what
> > > >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
> >
> > > >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> > other
> > > >> > ideas
> > > >> >> on formulating urban plans?
> >
> > > >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
> > that
> > > > the
> > > >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
planning
> > > >> > board
> > > >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
> > then
> > > >> > spend
> > > >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> > > > happens
> > > >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > > >> > everyone's
> > > >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
things
> > > > get
> > > >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite
well,
> > > >> > even
> > > >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we
can
> > > >> > have
> > > >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he
would do
> > > > (he
> > > >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> > commision?
> > > > 5
> > > >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> > grand,
> > > >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> > future.
> >
> > > >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
> >
> > > > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
> >
> > > If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer
some
> > > better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was,
given
> > > all she accomplished.
> >
> > You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
> > Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
> > said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise
what
> > is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome
of
> > hate which always praises the past
>
> Or perhaps it's a syndrome of common sense when you have 6 and 1/2
> billion inhabitants on this planet.
>
Irrelevant. With the densities the Sierra Club wants for an 'efficient
city,' you could put the entire world's population in the state of Texas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:09:52
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Chris" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns990957DA71E3Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > > "Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > >news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > >> <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >"Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
> > >> >> corners
> > >> >except
> > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > >> >> factories
> > > all
> > >> >over
> > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to
> > >> >> work.
> > >> >There's
> > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
> > >> >> traffic
> > > a
> > >> >bit,
> > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > >> >> whistles,
> > > and
> > >> >use
> > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
>
> > >> >> Dave Head
>
> > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> > > business
> > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
>
> > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
> > >> exactly
> > > how?
>
> > >> DPH
>
> > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> > > close enough.
>
> > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
>
> The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot have
> a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was impossible in
> 1890 too.-
It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.
By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...
"By the start of the 20th century, cycling had become an important
means of transportation, and in the United States an increasingly
popular form of recreation."
\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:28:15
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175893792.140957.161350@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 5, 5:10 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "Chris" <c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:Xns990957DA71E3Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > >news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >
> > > > "Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> > > >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > > >> <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >> >"Dave Head" <rally...@att.net> wrote in message
> > > >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> > > >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
> > > >> >> corners
> > > >> >except
> > > >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> > > >> >> factories
> > > > all
> > > >> >over
> > > >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk
to
> > > >> >> work.
> > > >> >There's
> > > >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
> > > >> >> traffic
> > > > a
> > > >> >bit,
> > > >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> > > >> >> whistles,
> > > > and
> > > >> >use
> > > >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
> >
> > > >> >> Dave Head
> >
> > > >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> > > > business
> > > >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global
competition.
> >
> > > >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
> > > >> exactly
> > > > how?
> >
> > > >> DPH
> >
> > > > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> > > > close enough.
> >
> > > 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> > > dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
> >
> > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
have
> > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
impossible in
> > 1890 too.-
>
> It didn't disappear, it was killed, just like the trolley.
>
> By the way, in 1890 it was BICYCLES that ruled the roads...
It was the trolley which spread cities by a factor of 100 AND ended the
walkable city. Bicycles? They changed nothing.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:06:23
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
SMS wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
>
>> Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
>> people do
>> not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing problems.
>> Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>
> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked better
> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
> near where you worked. Those times are long gone. Proposition 13 makes
> it extremely undesirable to move when you change jobs, i.e. if I moved
> to an equivalent value house to the one I'm in, my property tax would go
> up by about $7000 per year, to $14,000.
I can reply for a fact that Chicago has the better system since I have
used both, although years apart. Growth is what pushed me out of Silicon
valley. I could actually get places faster at lunch than if I had a car.
I did, since work is 150 miles from home and I can get the bike in the
back to take with me. Silicon valley is not ideal. They do have light
rail and some buses but far too few.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that people
do
> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
problems.
> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>
> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked better
> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
> near where you worked.
The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live near
where you work.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 00:39:29
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that people
>do
>> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>problems.
>> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>>
>> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
>> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked better
>> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
>> near where you worked.
>
> The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live near
>where you work.
Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
DPH
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:22:25
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: "if you can't beat them, join them"
|
On Apr 6, 7:27 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>
> news:qihRh.39209$5i7.28723@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:s1gRh.18716$PL.3614@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > >news:vffRh.28410$_a1.11888@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> > >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
> > >> >news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> > >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> >>news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> > > message
> > >> >> >news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> > >> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > >> >> >>news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > >> >> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
> > > only
> > >> >> >> > Chevrolet
> > >> >> >> >> > makes cars.
>
> > >> >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the
> only
> > > way
> > >> > if
> > >> >> >> >> you
> > >> >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>
> > >> >> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only
> way
> > > to
> > >> > go,
> > >> >> >> > like
> > >> >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future
> > >> >> >> > is
> > >> > not
> > >> >> >> > what
> > >> >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>
> > >> >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> > > other
> > >> >> > ideas
> > >> >> >> on formulating urban plans?
>
> > >> >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
> > > that
> > >> > the
> > >> >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
> > >> >> > planning
> > >> >> > board
> > >> >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
> > > then
> > >> >> > spend
> > >> >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> > >> > happens
> > >> >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > >> >> > everyone's
> > >> >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
> > >> >> > things
> > >> > get
> > >> >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite
> well,
> > >> >> > even
> > >> >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we
> can
> > >> >> > have
> > >> >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would
> > >> >> > do
> > >> > (he
> > >> >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> > > commision?
> > >> > 5
> > >> >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> > > grand,
> > >> >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> > > future.
>
> > >> >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
>
> > >> > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
>
> > >> If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer
> > >> some
> > >> better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was,
> > >> given
> > >> all she accomplished.
>
> > > You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
> > > Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
> > > said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise
> what
> > > is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome
> of
> > > hate which always praises the past.
>
> > I hate to tell you this, but Queen Elizabeth lived longer ago than 150
> > years.
>
> Some things never change. And the current vocabulary about "sprawl" was
> firmly in place following some blasts in 1800s. The joke is that the same
> vocabulary is now in place to criticize new buildings while the original
> source of scorn is now seen as good. The goal is to be critical, but of
> what? Anything convenient. You are a good example.-
I'm sure the Indians were critical of it too. And see how much they
have advanced now: They even got casinos and big money to prove that
"if you can't beat them, join them."
Because it's all about money --not quality of life.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:49:06
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
people
> >do
> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >problems.
> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
> >>
> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
better
> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
> >> near where you worked.
> >
> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
near
> >where you work.
>
> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>
> DPH
> >
Houston had something like no zoning, but the patterns of development
were similar there to other areas with zoning. So, we have been there, done
that, and it changed nothing.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:21:42
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:SgMQh.20967$Jl.14449@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
> people
>> >do
>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>> >problems.
>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>> >>
>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
>> >> to,
>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> better
>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
>> >> near where you worked.
>> >
>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
> near
>> >where you work.
>>
>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>>
>> DPH
>> >
>
> Houston had something like no zoning, but the patterns of development
> were similar there to other areas with zoning. So, we have been there,
> done
> that, and it changed nothing.
That's because Houston didn't have a real plan. In the absence of a plan
(and actually usually with it, unfortunately), people do what they've always
seen.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:12:10
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:dLMQh.44803$sC.35362@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:SgMQh.20967$Jl.14449@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
> > people
> >> >do
> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >> >problems.
> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
way.
> >> >>
> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
> >> >> to,
> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> > better
> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
house
> >> >> near where you worked.
> >> >
> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
> > near
> >> >where you work.
> >>
> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >>
> >> DPH
> >> >
> >
> > Houston had something like no zoning, but the patterns of development
> > were similar there to other areas with zoning. So, we have been there,
> > done
> > that, and it changed nothing.
>
> That's because Houston didn't have a real plan. In the absence of a plan
> (and actually usually with it, unfortunately), people do what they've
always
> seen.
>
People do not want to be forced into apartment houses because that is what
you want.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:04:07
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:uETQh.21102$Jl.8048@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:dLMQh.44803$sC.35362@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:SgMQh.20967$Jl.14449@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> > news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
>> > people
>> >> >do
>> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>> >> >problems.
>> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
> way.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
>> >> >> to,
>> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
>> > better
>> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
> house
>> >> >> near where you worked.
>> >> >
>> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
>> >> > live
>> > near
>> >> >where you work.
>> >>
>> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >>
>> >> DPH
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Houston had something like no zoning, but the patterns of
>> > development
>> > were similar there to other areas with zoning. So, we have been there,
>> > done
>> > that, and it changed nothing.
>>
>> That's because Houston didn't have a real plan. In the absence of a plan
>> (and actually usually with it, unfortunately), people do what they've
> always
>> seen.
>>
> People do not want to be forced into apartment houses because that is
> what
> you want.
That statement doesn't even make any sense. Poor George. I'm not sure what
in what I said made you feel so outgunned this time that you resorted again
to your famous strawman technique.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:54:12
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:_oUQh.31538$nV1.7901@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uETQh.21102$Jl.8048@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:dLMQh.44803$sC.35362@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:SgMQh.20967$Jl.14449@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
that
> >> > people
> >> >> >do
> >> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >> >> >problems.
> >> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
> > way.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
travel
> >> >> >> to,
> >> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> >> > better
> >> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
> > house
> >> >> >> near where you worked.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
> >> >> > live
> >> > near
> >> >> >where you work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >> >>
> >> >> DPH
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Houston had something like no zoning, but the patterns of
> >> > development
> >> > were similar there to other areas with zoning. So, we have been
there,
> >> > done
> >> > that, and it changed nothing.
> >>
> >> That's because Houston didn't have a real plan. In the absence of a
plan
> >> (and actually usually with it, unfortunately), people do what they've
> > always
> >> seen.
> >>
> > People do not want to be forced into apartment houses because that is
> > what
> > you want.
>
> That statement doesn't even make any sense. Poor George. I'm not sure
what
> in what I said made you feel so outgunned this time that you resorted
again
> to your famous strawman technique.
>
>
I just see through your lies. Infill is "tear down single-family housing."
Nothing more. Replace them with apartments. It is a lie to contend
otherwise.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:34:01
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:EUWQh.21148$Jl.11021@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:_oUQh.31538$nV1.7901@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:uETQh.21102$Jl.8048@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:dLMQh.44803$sC.35362@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:SgMQh.20967$Jl.14449@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
> that
>> >> > people
>> >> >> >do
>> >> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
>> >> >> >> > causing
>> >> >> >problems.
>> >> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
>> > way.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
> travel
>> >> >> >> to,
>> >> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
>> >> >> >> worked
>> >> > better
>> >> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
>> > house
>> >> >> >> near where you worked.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
>> >> >> > live
>> >> > near
>> >> >> >where you work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> DPH
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Houston had something like no zoning, but the patterns of
>> >> > development
>> >> > were similar there to other areas with zoning. So, we have been
> there,
>> >> > done
>> >> > that, and it changed nothing.
>> >>
>> >> That's because Houston didn't have a real plan. In the absence of a
> plan
>> >> (and actually usually with it, unfortunately), people do what they've
>> > always
>> >> seen.
>> >>
>> > People do not want to be forced into apartment houses because that is
>> > what
>> > you want.
>>
>> That statement doesn't even make any sense. Poor George. I'm not sure
> what
>> in what I said made you feel so outgunned this time that you resorted
> again
>> to your famous strawman technique.
>>
>>
>
> I just see through your lies. Infill is "tear down single-family
> housing."
> Nothing more. Replace them with apartments. It is a lie to contend
> otherwise.
Wow you really ARE feeling outgunned aren't you? How did you leap from
"Houston looks like everywhere else because they didn't have a plan." to
"infill means tear down single-family housing." ? Oddly, when you're
challenged on your straw man rhetoric you resort to ever more tenuous straw
man arguments. PLEASE see if they offer some rhetoric or even philosophy
courses at that university of yours before you embarrass yourself further!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:20:30
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
people
> >do
> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >problems.
> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
> >>
> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
better
> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
> >> near where you worked.
> >
> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
near
> >where you work.
>
> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>
Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 02:34:55
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com >
wrote:
>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
>people
>> >do
>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>> >problems.
>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>> >>
>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel to,
>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
>better
>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a house
>> >> near where you worked.
>> >
>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
>near
>> >where you work.
>>
>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>>
>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>
Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is zoned
industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all our
lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the street
from our factories.
Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and solve the
problem or be part of the problem.
DPH
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 09:59:29
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: George, what you propose to stop the scam at hand?
|
On Apr 6, 10:08 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Tim McNaa" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-2EF3FB.21012106042007@news.iphouse.com...
>
> > In article <CWzRh.314$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > St Growth is based on a lie, but a useful one to get the taxpayer
> > > to pay for a developer's schemes.
>
> > Not like that's new. That sort of scheming was around long before
> > "st growth."
>
> True, but st growth is just the latest scam.
EVERYTHING is a scam nowadays, down to the presidential elections and
the most expensive war this side of WWII...
But what you propose to stop the scam at hand, namely St Growth?
How do you make a st policy, even you drop the word "st" from it?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 19:46:38
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> wrote:
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
> >people
> >> >do
> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >> >problems.
> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
way.
> >> >>
> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
to,
> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> >better
> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
house
> >> >> near where you worked.
> >> >
> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
> >near
> >> >where you work.
> >>
> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >>
> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >
>
> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is
zoned
> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all our
> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
street
> from our factories.
>
> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and solve the
> problem or be part of the problem.
>
Living close to work does NOT preclude zoning. Zoning in Portland, for
instance, allows for Mixed-Use development - which allows for -compatible-
uses (heavy industry next to residential is not good).
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:49:40
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> wrote:
>
> >-
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
> >people
> >> >do
> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >> >problems.
> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
way.
> >> >>
> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
to,
> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> >better
> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
house
> >> >> near where you worked.
> >> >
> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
> >near
> >> >where you work.
> >>
> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >>
> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >
>
> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is
zoned
> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all our
> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
street
> from our factories.
>
> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and solve the
> problem or be part of the problem.
>
> DPH
Houston is living proof your ideas did not work out.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:13:41
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:49:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >-
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
>> >people
>> >> >do
>> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>> >> >problems.
>> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
>way.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
>to,
>> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
>> >better
>> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
>house
>> >> >> near where you worked.
>> >> >
>> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
>> >near
>> >> >where you work.
>> >>
>> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >>
>> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>> >
>>
>> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
>> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is
>zoned
>> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all our
>> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
>street
>> from our factories.
>>
>> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and solve the
>> problem or be part of the problem.
>>
>> DPH
>
>Houston is living proof your ideas did not work out.
Houston appears to be a thriving big city to me. Seems to work fine...
DPH
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:41:11
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:rm1813d1dsp5htbnt5tj5femp677vn2t8l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:49:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >-
> >>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
that
> >> >people
> >> >> >do
> >> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >> >> >problems.
> >> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
> >way.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
travel
> >to,
> >> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> >> >better
> >> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
> >house
> >> >> >> near where you worked.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
live
> >> >near
> >> >> >where you work.
> >> >>
> >> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >> >>
> >> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> >> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that
is
> >zoned
> >> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
our
> >> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
> >street
> >> from our factories.
> >>
> >> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and solve
the
> >> problem or be part of the problem.
> >>
> >> DPH
> >
> >Houston is living proof your ideas did not work out.
>
> Houston appears to be a thriving big city to me. Seems to work fine...
>
> DPH
> >
Houston looks like any other city. So changing the zoning is not going to
do much of anything. NC cities can annex almost anything, but that has not
changed the patterns either. It just means they annex everything and now
even want to take over the entire county.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:02:55
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:H3UQh.134353$_73.126424@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> news:rm1813d1dsp5htbnt5tj5femp677vn2t8l@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:49:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >-
>> >>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> >>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
> that
>> >> >people
>> >> >> >do
>> >> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
>> >> >> >> > causing
>> >> >> >problems.
>> >> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
>> >way.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
> travel
>> >to,
>> >> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
>> >> >> >> worked
>> >> >better
>> >> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
>> >house
>> >> >> >> near where you worked.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
> live
>> >> >near
>> >> >> >where you work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >> >>
>> >> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
>> >> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that
> is
>> >zoned
>> >> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
> our
>> >> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
>> >street
>> >> from our factories.
>> >>
>> >> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and solve
> the
>> >> problem or be part of the problem.
>> >>
>> >> DPH
>> >
>> >Houston is living proof your ideas did not work out.
>>
>> Houston appears to be a thriving big city to me. Seems to work fine...
>>
>> DPH
>> >
>
> Houston looks like any other city. So changing the zoning is not going to
> do much of anything. NC cities can annex almost anything, but that has
> not
> changed the patterns either. It just means they annex everything and now
> even want to take over the entire county.
Yes, that is exactly what happens with sprawl. People move out into the
country because they don't want to be in the city, and the developed land is
worth more and has a bigger tax base, so the city wants it. Then they annex
it and people move again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:53:10
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:SnUQh.31537$nV1.10039@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:H3UQh.134353$_73.126424@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:rm1813d1dsp5htbnt5tj5femp677vn2t8l@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:49:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> > <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >-
> >> >>
>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >> >>
>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> >> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
> > that
> >> >> >people
> >> >> >> >do
> >> >> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
> >> >> >> >> > causing
> >> >> >> >problems.
> >> >> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by
the
> >> >way.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
> > travel
> >> >to,
> >> >> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
> >> >> >> >> worked
> >> >> >better
> >> >> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy
a
> >> >house
> >> >> >> >> near where you worked.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having
you
> > live
> >> >> >near
> >> >> >> >where you work.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a
try...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is
zoned
> >> >> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town
that
> > is
> >> >zoned
> >> >> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it
all
> > our
> >> >> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across
the
> >> >street
> >> >> from our factories.
> >> >>
> >> >> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and
solve
> > the
> >> >> problem or be part of the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> DPH
> >> >
> >> >Houston is living proof your ideas did not work out.
> >>
> >> Houston appears to be a thriving big city to me. Seems to work fine...
> >>
> >> DPH
> >> >
> >
> > Houston looks like any other city. So changing the zoning is not going
to
> > do much of anything. NC cities can annex almost anything, but that has
> > not
> > changed the patterns either. It just means they annex everything and
now
> > even want to take over the entire county.
>
> Yes, that is exactly what happens with sprawl.
Drivel. If cities are to grow, all the land is already taken up. We
don't need farmland in cities.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:30:24
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:GTWQh.21147$Jl.4941@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:SnUQh.31537$nV1.10039@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:H3UQh.134353$_73.126424@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> > news:rm1813d1dsp5htbnt5tj5femp677vn2t8l@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:49:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
>> > <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >-
>> >> >>
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> >> >>
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> >> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> >> >> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem
>> >> >> >> >> > is
>> > that
>> >> >> >people
>> >> >> >> >do
>> >> >> >> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
>> >> >> >> >> > causing
>> >> >> >> >problems.
>> >> >> >> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by
> the
>> >> >way.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
>> > travel
>> >> >to,
>> >> >> >> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
>> >> >> >> >> worked
>> >> >> >better
>> >> >> >> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd
>> >> >> >> >> buy
> a
>> >> >house
>> >> >> >> >> near where you worked.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having
> you
>> > live
>> >> >> >near
>> >> >> >> >where you work.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a
> try...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is
> zoned
>> >> >> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town
> that
>> > is
>> >> >zoned
>> >> >> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it
> all
>> > our
>> >> >> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across
> the
>> >> >street
>> >> >> from our factories.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Make up your mind, retard - do you wanna live close to work and
> solve
>> > the
>> >> >> problem or be part of the problem.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> DPH
>> >> >
>> >> >Houston is living proof your ideas did not work out.
>> >>
>> >> Houston appears to be a thriving big city to me. Seems to work
>> >> fine...
>> >>
>> >> DPH
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Houston looks like any other city. So changing the zoning is not going
> to
>> > do much of anything. NC cities can annex almost anything, but that has
>> > not
>> > changed the patterns either. It just means they annex everything and
> now
>> > even want to take over the entire county.
>>
>> Yes, that is exactly what happens with sprawl.
>
> Drivel. If cities are to grow, all the land is already taken up. We
> don't need farmland in cities.
You're the one complaining that that is what happens. If you're so happy
with it why complain?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 23:24:52
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> wrote:
>
>>-
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> >> George Conklin wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
>>people
>>> >do
>>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>>> >problems.
>>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the way.
>>> >>
>>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
>>> >> to,
>>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
>>better
>>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
>>> >> house
>>> >> near where you worked.
>>> >
>>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you live
>>near
>>> >where you work.
>>>
>>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>>>
>>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>>
>
> Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is
> zoned
> industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all our
> lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
> street
> from our factories.
That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address. Conventional
zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the St
code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done inside
it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:50:26
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>-
>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
> >>people
> >>> >do
> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
> >>> >problems.
> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
way.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
> >>> >> to,
> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
> >>better
> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
> >>> >> house
> >>> >> near where you worked.
> >>> >
> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
live
> >>near
> >>> >where you work.
> >>>
> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >>>
> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >>
> >
> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is
> > zoned
> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
our
> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
> > street
> > from our factories.
>
> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address. Conventional
> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the
St
> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done
inside
> it.
>
>
St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a Toyota
or Chrysler plant.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:12:45
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:50:26 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
><lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>-
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is that
>> >>people
>> >>> >do
>> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>> >>> >problems.
>> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
>way.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to travel
>> >>> >> to,
>> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
>> >>better
>> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
>> >>> >> house
>> >>> >> near where you worked.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
>live
>> >>near
>> >>> >where you work.
>> >>>
>> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >>>
>> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
>> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that is
>> > zoned
>> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
>our
>> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
>> > street
>> > from our factories.
>>
>> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address. Conventional
>> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the
>St
>> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done
>inside
>> it.
>>
>>
>
>St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a Toyota
>or Chrysler plant.
My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all corners except
the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories all over
that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to work. There's
very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck traffic a bit,
but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles, and use
them to tell time without your watch.
Dave Head
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:50:26 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> >news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> >> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> ><lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>-
> >>
>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >>
>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
that
> >> >>people
> >> >>> >do
> >> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
causing
> >> >>> >problems.
> >> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
> >way.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
travel
> >> >>> >> to,
> >> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
worked
> >> >>better
> >> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
> >> >>> >> house
> >> >>> >> near where you worked.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
> >live
> >> >>near
> >> >>> >where you work.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >> >>>
> >> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> >> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that
is
> >> > zoned
> >> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
> >our
> >> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across
the
> >> > street
> >> > from our factories.
> >>
> >> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address. Conventional
> >> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the
> >St
> >> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done
> >inside
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
Toyota
> >or Chrysler plant.
>
> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all corners
except
> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories all
over
> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to work.
There's
> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck traffic a
bit,
> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles, and
use
> them to tell time without your watch.
>
> Dave Head
The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of business
all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 21:36:40
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
>> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all corners
>except
>> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories all
>over
>> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to work.
>There's
>> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck traffic a
>bit,
>> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles, and
>use
>> them to tell time without your watch.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of business
>all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work exactly how?
DPH
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:52:06
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all corners
> >except
> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories
all
> >over
> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to work.
> >There's
> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck traffic
a
> >bit,
> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles,
and
> >use
> >> them to tell time without your watch.
> >>
> >> Dave Head
> >
> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
business
> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
>
> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work exactly
how?
>
> DPH
> >
> >
We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
enough.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 13:45:10
From: Chris
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in
news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
>> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
>> >> corners
>> >except
>> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
>> >> factories
> all
>> >over
>> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to
>> >> work.
>> >There's
>> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
>> >> traffic
> a
>> >bit,
>> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
>> >> whistles,
> and
>> >use
>> >> them to tell time without your watch.
>> >>
>> >> Dave Head
>> >
>> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> business
>> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
>>
>> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
>> exactly
> how?
>>
>> DPH
>> >
>> >
>
> We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> close enough.
>
>
>
>
20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:10:45
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Chris" <chris@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns990957DA71E3Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
> >> >> corners
> >> >except
> >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
> >> >> factories
> > all
> >> >over
> >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to
> >> >> work.
> >> >There's
> >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
> >> >> traffic
> > a
> >> >bit,
> >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
> >> >> whistles,
> > and
> >> >use
> >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave Head
> >> >
> >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> > business
> >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
> >>
> >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
> >> exactly
> > how?
> >>
> >> DPH
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> > close enough.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
> dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot have
a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was impossible in
1890 too.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 12:01:40
From: Chris
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in
news:pBdRh.21381$Jl.20017@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "Chris" <chris@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns990957DA71E3Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:GSWQh.21146$Jl.1744@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> > news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
>> >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
>> >> >> corners
>> >> >except
>> >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from
>> >> >> factories
>> > all
>> >> >over
>> >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk
>> >> >> to work.
>> >> >There's
>> >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
>> >> >> traffic
>> > a
>> >> >bit,
>> >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory
>> >> >> whistles,
>> > and
>> >> >use
>> >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dave Head
>> >> >
>> >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out
>> >> >of
>> > business
>> >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global
>> >> >competition.
>> >>
>> >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
>> >> exactly
>> > how?
>> >>
>> >> DPH
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> > We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
>> > close enough.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> 20 minutes by foot?? No, by automobile. We in the west are so
>> dependent upon our cars. 10 minuts by foot is about a mile away.
>
> The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
> have
> a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
> impossible in 1890 too.
>
>
>
Your children, depending on your age, your grandchildfren will once
again see a 'walkable city' when the oil runs out
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 02:44:28
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:52:06 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
>> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all corners
>> >except
>> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories
>all
>> >over
>> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to work.
>> >There's
>> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck traffic
>a
>> >bit,
>> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles,
>and
>> >use
>> >> them to tell time without your watch.
>> >>
>> >> Dave Head
>> >
>> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
>business
>> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
>>
>> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work exactly
>how?
>>
>> DPH
>> >
>> >
>
>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
>enough.
That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather see 3
- 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
DPH
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 10:49:32
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:8jo813pspr9qcekg4k0louetqivqitl508@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 23:52:06 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:kh68135fdlofo9gl06eef88h5vf1fvb09t@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 20:39:54 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:ui1813pjfgtmko0cooi3i5gqk1mg1a0pcu@4ax.com...
> >> >> My home town, Fostoria, Ohio, is dotted with factories in all
corners
> >> >except
> >> >> the extreme Northwest. People live across the street from factories
> >all
> >> >over
> >> >> that town. Life is great - there's lotsa people that can walk to
work.
> >> >There's
> >> >> very little downside to it - some people get bothered by truck
traffic
> >a
> >> >bit,
> >> >> but otherwise its great. You even get used to the factory whistles,
> >and
> >> >use
> >> >> them to tell time without your watch.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dave Head
> >> >
> >> >The rust belt is not the future. Small factories are going out of
> >business
> >> >all over the place due to their inefficiency and global competition.
> >>
> >> And this statement invalidates the concept of living close to work
exactly
> >how?
> >>
> >> DPH
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
> >enough.
>
> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
see 3
> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
No, it actually is more like what you want. But the small corner factory
is not practical anywhere anymore. Even in China.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 22:02:12
From: di
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message >>> >
>>
>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
>>enough.
>
> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
> see 3
> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>
> DPH
I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
you'll just have to get use to it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 22:22:10
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>
>>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
>>>enough.
>>
>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
>> see 3
>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>
>> DPH
>
>I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
>but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
>you'll just have to get use to it.
Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30 each way
for gasoline.
The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as
they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning.
Dave Head
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:41:43
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <bhta13909iculafqk1vp8ukffin5tj23cu@4ax.com >,
Dave Head <Rally2xs@att.net > wrote:
>
>The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as
>they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning.
You have to get rid of more than zoning. You have to get rid of
companies which move. You have to make it possible for all working
family members to work in the same community. You have to either have
long-term jobs or make moving one's home much easier.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:31:54
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:9cKdneScGaL6LojbnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <bhta13909iculafqk1vp8ukffin5tj23cu@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <Rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things
as
> >they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the
zoning.
>
> You have to get rid of more than zoning. You have to get rid of
> companies which move. You have to make it possible for all working
> family members to work in the same community. You have to either have
> long-term jobs or make moving one's home much easier.
You would need a czar of employment and housing and make companies
provide housing for their workers. That used to be called a mill town, and
they exploited the workers horribly. So does St Growth.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 16:56:49
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Dave Head wrote:
> The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as
> they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning.
It's a great theory, but unfortunately people don't move every time they
(or their spouse) changes jobs. Even working for the same company you
can end up working in different locations. I.e. I worked for one company
in four different cities over a period of five years. First they outgrew
their building and moved to a larger building. Then they were acquired
and moved again. As the new owners destroyed the company, we moved two
more times before the whole mess collapsed.
What's happening in my area is that there was a huge surplus of
commercial industrial space for a while, so the building owners were
trying to get their land rezoned so they could tear down the buildings
and build condos. Now there isn't a surplus anymore and the housing
ket has tanked, so all of a sudden the building owners are renovating
their buildings and leasing them.
In the areas of my city, where "St Growth" occurred, before we put a
stop to it, it caused excessive traffic, made the city less walkable,
less cyclable, and has encouraged more driving, especially to schools,
where the parents are now reluctant to let their kids walk or bicycle to
school. The additional housing, which was not accompanied by more
schools, caused the schools to pave over fields for portable classrooms,
which caused more traffic problems as school attendance went up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 00:17:58
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46158cc3$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Dave Head wrote:
>
> > The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many
things as
> > they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the
zoning.
>
> It's a great theory, but unfortunately people don't move every time they
> (or their spouse) changes jobs. Even working for the same company you
> can end up working in different locations. I.e. I worked for one company
> in four different cities over a period of five years. First they outgrew
> their building and moved to a larger building. Then they were acquired
> and moved again. As the new owners destroyed the company, we moved two
> more times before the whole mess collapsed.
>
> What's happening in my area is that there was a huge surplus of
> commercial industrial space for a while, so the building owners were
> trying to get their land rezoned so they could tear down the buildings
> and build condos. Now there isn't a surplus anymore and the housing
> ket has tanked, so all of a sudden the building owners are renovating
> their buildings and leasing them.
>
> In the areas of my city, where "St Growth" occurred, before we put a
> stop to it, it caused excessive traffic, made the city less walkable,
> less cyclable, and has encouraged more driving, especially to schools,
> where the parents are now reluctant to let their kids walk or bicycle to
> school. The additional housing, which was not accompanied by more
> schools, caused the schools to pave over fields for portable classrooms,
> which caused more traffic problems as school attendance went up.
St Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be
true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your
local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there by
bus.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 18:01:54
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> St Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be
> true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your
> local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there by
> bus.
No buses in my area, or at least very, very few. To racially balance the
schools in my area would require busing in vast quantities of
Caucasians, as the area is now very Asian, except for the old-timers
(who no longer have children).
The demographic changes have improved the area in many ways, including
better restaurants, better schools, and more care in taking care of
properties. However one negative is the tendency to be over-protective,
so walking or biking to school is not as widespread as it should be. I
see one guy driving his daughter about 300 feet to school almost every
day, it takes much longer to drive that distance than to walk it. Also,
the level of driving proficiency is not high, though it's not because of
race, it's because of many less years of driving experience, and an
attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists that originates from places
where cars have even higher priority. The daily minivan convention is
daunting, as many drivers don't stop for students in the crosswalks. I
carry a crossing guards stop sign with me every morning, and it's a big
help, but even with that some drivers ignore my son and I.
The "St Growth" has made it much worse because of the overcrowding it
brings. It's a domino effect where people are even less likely to walk
or bike because of the traffic congestion. The few stores that are part
of the high-density housing are not patronized much, and many have closed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:30:51
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46159c04$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > St Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be
> > true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your
> > local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there
by
> > bus.
>
> No buses in my area, or at least very, very few. To racially balance the
> schools in my area would require busing in vast quantities of
> Caucasians, as the area is now very Asian, except for the old-timers
> (who no longer have children).
Well, busing is required by law in most of the United States and it is
going to remain that way too. Schools must balance race, class and other
variables.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 08:29:29
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> Well, busing is required by law in most of the United States and it is
> going to remain that way too. Schools must balance race, class and other
> variables.
They must balance it withing the school district. When you have
relatively small school districts, with race distributed fairly evenly,
there is little busing. There is no requirement for busing anywhere in
the U.S., there is a requirement for non-segregated schools. Busing is
the method used in many areas.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:29:21
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46159c04$0$27170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > St Growth does cause increased congestion. That has been shown to be
> > true. Further, schools are racially balanced by busing, so even if your
> > local school is walkable, most of the students will still arrive there
by
> > bus.
>
> No buses in my area, or at least very, very few. To racially balance the
> schools in my area would require busing in vast quantities of
> Caucasians, as the area is now very Asian, except for the old-timers
> (who no longer have children).
>
> The demographic changes have improved the area in many ways, including
> better restaurants, better schools, and more care in taking care of
> properties. However one negative is the tendency to be over-protective,
> so walking or biking to school is not as widespread as it should be. I
> see one guy driving his daughter about 300 feet to school almost every
> day, it takes much longer to drive that distance than to walk it. Also,
> the level of driving proficiency is not high, though it's not because of
> race, it's because of many less years of driving experience, and an
> attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists that originates from places
> where cars have even higher priority. The daily minivan convention is
> daunting, as many drivers don't stop for students in the crosswalks. I
> carry a crossing guards stop sign with me every morning, and it's a big
> help, but even with that some drivers ignore my son and I.
>
> The "St Growth" has made it much worse because of the overcrowding it
> brings. It's a domino effect where people are even less likely to walk
> or bike because of the traffic congestion. The few stores that are part
> of the high-density housing are not patronized much, and many have closed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:03:13
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:bhta13909iculafqk1vp8ukffin5tj23cu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
> >>>
> >>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
close
> >>>enough.
> >>
> >> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd
rather
> >> see 3
> >> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
> >>
> >> DPH
> >
> >I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
> >but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
> >you'll just have to get use to it.
>
> Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30 each
way
> for gasoline.
Why not be reasonable and say $100?
>
> The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things
as
> they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the
zoning.
>
> Dave Head
> >
Put Mr. Head to work in an auto factory and make him live in the basement.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 02:16:13
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:03:13 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:bhta13909iculafqk1vp8ukffin5tj23cu@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
>close
>> >>>enough.
>> >>
>> >> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd
>rather
>> >> see 3
>> >> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>> >>
>> >> DPH
>> >
>> >I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
>> >but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
>> >you'll just have to get use to it.
>>
>> Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30 each
>way
>> for gasoline.
>
> Why not be reasonable and say $100?
>
>
>>
>> The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things
>as
>> they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the
>zoning.
>>
>> Dave Head
>> >
>
>Put Mr. Head to work in an auto factory and make him live in the basement.
>
Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the National
Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some particularly
nasty particulates, it was just great.
Dave Head
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:28:37
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:0abb139l6bf7p02el75vsv7ego39bropdo@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:03:13 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:bhta13909iculafqk1vp8ukffin5tj23cu@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
> >close
> >> >>>enough.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd
> >rather
> >> >> see 3
> >> >> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
> >> >>
> >> >> DPH
> >> >
> >> >I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each
way,
> >> >but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be.
Guess
> >> >you'll just have to get use to it.
> >>
> >> Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30
each
> >way
> >> for gasoline.
> >
> > Why not be reasonable and say $100?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many
things
> >as
> >> they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the
> >zoning.
> >>
> >> Dave Head
> >> >
> >
> >Put Mr. Head to work in an auto factory and make him live in the
basement.
> >
> Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the
National
> Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some
particularly
> nasty particulates, it was just great.
>
> Dave Head
Most people don't want lower class housing.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 23:01:01
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:28:37 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> Across the street would be fine. I lived across the street from the
>National
>> Carbon Company in Fostoria, and, once we got 'em to clean up some
>particularly
>> nasty particulates, it was just great.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
> Most people don't want lower class housing.
Hey, the price was right. I sold it about 15 years ago for $12K. Now, I'ts
prolly worth $50K 'cuz the neighborhood has improved dramatically. Small
house. But lotsa space outside. And... nobody really cares about the carbon
plant.
DPH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 22:57:57
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Dave Head wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:02:12 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>> We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
>>>> enough.
>>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
>>> see 3
>>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>>
>>> DPH
>> I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
>> but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
>> you'll just have to get use to it.
>
> Get back to me when your 30 minute drive starts costing you about $30 each way
> for gasoline.
>
> The idea is to allow people to live where they can walk to as many things as
> they wish, and especially work. To do that, you have to get rid of the zoning.
>
> Dave Head
Anyone remember when the Internet was going to SAVE us by allowing
telecommuting? It didn't happen because the companies want you in sight
and under their thumb. Now who's to blame, the employee or the company?
Anybody want to plan on better management?
Working in the Bay Area or Silicon valley I can make over $50/Hr. but
where I live it is typically minimum wage unless you are self employed.
I went self employed and still do some work for people I know in the
Silicon valley mess, but I won't drive down there anymore.
Less $$$$ but way less gasoline and traffic aggravation. Silicon valley
is already way over-centralized. Just going for lunch meant a half hour
in traffic to get to the restaurant. A get together lunch at a real
restaurant with my friends from other companies meant a 2 hour lunch.
Grow around that!!!
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:46:15
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:NEZQh.62725$mJ1.59662@newsfe22.lga...
>
> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>
>>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is close
>>>enough.
>>
>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
>> see 3
>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>
>> DPH
>
> I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
> but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
> you'll just have to get use to it.
So everyone should be happy with what you're happy with?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 06:31:43
From: di
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:r5%Qh.38139$5i7.17660@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:NEZQh.62725$mJ1.59662@newsfe22.lga...
>>
>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>>
>>>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
>>>>close
>>>>enough.
>>>
>>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
>>> see 3
>>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>>
>>> DPH
>>
>> I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
>> but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
>> you'll just have to get use to it.
>
> So everyone should be happy with what you're happy with?
It's my lifestyle, not your's so you shouldn't be concerned. My issue was
with the statement above that "We'd rather see 3-5 miles, or maybe walkable"
when talking about where people should live. First who's "We", obviously
someone who thinks they know what's best for others.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 22:25:25
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:31:43 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>news:r5%Qh.38139$5i7.17660@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:NEZQh.62725$mJ1.59662@newsfe22.lga...
>>>
>>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
>>>>>close
>>>>>enough.
>>>>
>>>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd rather
>>>> see 3
>>>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>>>
>>>> DPH
>>>
>>> I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each way,
>>> but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be. Guess
>>> you'll just have to get use to it.
>>
>> So everyone should be happy with what you're happy with?
>
>It's my lifestyle, not your's so you shouldn't be concerned.
The concern is that you're happy with it, and so seem to be amenable to
continue the farcical mechanisms such as zoning that keeps the rest of us from
building a house across the street from our work, so we can get there without
getting dinged at all by the gasoline selling bunch.
>My issue was
>with the statement above that "We'd rather see 3-5 miles, or maybe walkable"
>when talking about where people should live. First who's "We", obviously
>someone who thinks they know what's best for others.
No, someone who wants the _permissions_ changed (zoning, other restrictive
laws) so we can put houses beside factories and live in them if we so choose.
You can live in Nebraska and commute to Texas, we don't care. We just don't
wanna _have to_.
Dave Head
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 19:01:00
From: jk
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:25:25 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net > wrote:
>No, someone who wants the _permissions_ changed (zoning, other restrictive
>laws) so we can put houses beside factories and live in them if we so choose.
> Snip
>Dave Head
No Zoning "so you can put houses beside factories". What if they put
factories beside houses. The people who already live there don't
choose to have a factory built next to their house. A factory that
pumps out noise, dirt, and throngs of workers . The home owner
doesn't work there either so he won' be walking there.
Without zoning the factory will go where the factory owner gets the
best bang for his buck and the home owner will get to loose most if
not all the equity in his home.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 07:10:43
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:785Rh.52299$s8.52008@newsfe21.lga...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:r5%Qh.38139$5i7.17660@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:NEZQh.62725$mJ1.59662@newsfe22.lga...
>>>
>>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
>>>>>close
>>>>>enough.
>>>>
>>>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd
>>>> rather see 3
>>>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>>>
>>>> DPH
>>>
>>> I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each
>>> way, but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be.
>>> Guess you'll just have to get use to it.
>>
>> So everyone should be happy with what you're happy with?
>
> It's my lifestyle, not your's so you shouldn't be concerned. My issue
> was with the statement above that "We'd rather see 3-5 miles, or maybe
> walkable" when talking about where people should live. First who's
> "We", obviously someone who thinks they know what's best for others.
You're the one telling people they should get used to what makes *you*
happy. Why shouldn't choices exist for people who are not happy with the
same things you are happy with?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 08:07:53
From: di
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:WG5Rh.28211$_a1.10503@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:785Rh.52299$s8.52008@newsfe21.lga...
>>
>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> news:r5%Qh.38139$5i7.17660@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:NEZQh.62725$mJ1.59662@newsfe22.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message >>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We already live close to work: 20 minutes on the average. That is
>>>>>>close
>>>>>>enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is nowhere near close enough. That is about 17 miles. We'd
>>>>> rather see 3
>>>>> - 5 miles, or maybe even something walkable, like in my home town.
>>>>>
>>>>> DPH
>>>>
>>>> I don't live anywhere near where I work, drive about 30 minutes each
>>>> way, but I do live where I want to and that's how it's going to be.
>>>> Guess you'll just have to get use to it.
>>>
>>> So everyone should be happy with what you're happy with?
>>
>> It's my lifestyle, not your's so you shouldn't be concerned. My issue
>> was with the statement above that "We'd rather see 3-5 miles, or maybe
>> walkable" when talking about where people should live. First who's
>> "We", obviously someone who thinks they know what's best for others.
>
> You're the one telling people they should get used to what makes *you*
> happy. Why shouldn't choices exist for people who are not happy with the
> same things you are happy with?
Wait a minute, read what's being written, I don't care where someone else
lives, whether it is across the street from where they work or 100 miles
away. What I do care about is being told where I should live. Besides if
you were to look at the realistic view, you would know that it's very
unlikely you would ever work more than 5-6 years in the same place. You
will either voluntary change jobs or the company will either move or close,
happens every day.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:20:09
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:6iMQh.20969$Jl.19114@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>-
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
>> >>> >> > that
>> >>people
>> >>> >do
>> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore, causing
>> >>> >problems.
>> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
> way.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
>> >>> >> travel
>> >>> >> to,
>> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It worked
>> >>better
>> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
>> >>> >> house
>> >>> >> near where you worked.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
> live
>> >>near
>> >>> >where you work.
>> >>>
>> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >>>
>> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
>> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that
>> > is
>> > zoned
>> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
> our
>> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across the
>> > street
>> > from our factories.
>>
>> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address. Conventional
>> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the
> St
>> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done
> inside
>> it.
>>
>>
>
> St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
> Toyota
> or Chrysler plant.
The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there. So the
result is st growth or no plan. And refusing to plan because things
might turn out wrong does not mean things won't turn out wrong anyway. It
just means there is no one specific to point the finger at.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 19:50:49
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
> > Toyota
> > or Chrysler plant.
>
> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there. So
the
> result is st growth or no plan. And refusing to plan because things
> might turn out wrong does not mean things won't turn out wrong anyway. It
> just means there is no one specific to point the finger at.
>
In some places, zoning means that industry is 10 miles from the nearest
residential. In Portland, st growth means that industrial is separated
from residential by a freeway or natural feature - for instance, Swan Island
is Heavy Industrial and I live on the bluff above (Swan "Island" is actually
a peninsula.)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:45:19
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:1318p09i1rdoqa4@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
>> > Toyota
>> > or Chrysler plant.
>>
>> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there. So
> the
>> result is st growth or no plan. And refusing to plan because things
>> might turn out wrong does not mean things won't turn out wrong anyway.
>> It
>> just means there is no one specific to point the finger at.
>>
> In some places, zoning means that industry is 10 miles from the nearest
> residential. In Portland, st growth means that industrial is separated
> from residential by a freeway or natural feature - for instance, Swan
> Island
> is Heavy Industrial and I live on the bluff above (Swan "Island" is
> actually
> a peninsula.)
Most residents are quite vocal about not wanting to be in walking distance
of heavy industrial.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 18:35:18
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:z4%Qh.38137$5i7.9113@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:1318p09i1rdoqa4@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
> >> > Toyota
> >> > or Chrysler plant.
> >>
> >> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there.
So
> > the
> >> result is st growth or no plan. And refusing to plan because things
> >> might turn out wrong does not mean things won't turn out wrong anyway.
> >> It
> >> just means there is no one specific to point the finger at.
> >>
> > In some places, zoning means that industry is 10 miles from the nearest
> > residential. In Portland, st growth means that industrial is
separated
> > from residential by a freeway or natural feature - for instance, Swan
> > Island
> > is Heavy Industrial and I live on the bluff above (Swan "Island" is
> > actually
> > a peninsula.)
>
> Most residents are quite vocal about not wanting to be in walking distance
> of heavy industrial.
>
The trip to work is a lot easier than the trip home.
I don't hear that many complaints from the people who live on the cliff
above Swan Island - and that includes some fairly pricey homes.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 22:00:03
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131b8uqdo89lp38@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:z4%Qh.38137$5i7.9113@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:1318p09i1rdoqa4@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
>> >> > Toyota
>> >> > or Chrysler plant.
>> >>
>> >> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there.
> So
>> > the
>> >> result is st growth or no plan. And refusing to plan because
>> >> things
>> >> might turn out wrong does not mean things won't turn out wrong anyway.
>> >> It
>> >> just means there is no one specific to point the finger at.
>> >>
>> > In some places, zoning means that industry is 10 miles from the nearest
>> > residential. In Portland, st growth means that industrial is
> separated
>> > from residential by a freeway or natural feature - for instance, Swan
>> > Island
>> > is Heavy Industrial and I live on the bluff above (Swan "Island" is
>> > actually
>> > a peninsula.)
>>
>> Most residents are quite vocal about not wanting to be in walking
>> distance
>> of heavy industrial.
>>
> The trip to work is a lot easier than the trip home.
>
> I don't hear that many complaints from the people who live on the cliff
> above Swan Island - and that includes some fairly pricey homes.
What were residents saying _before_ the industrial facilities were built?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 17:34:03
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:GIiRh.3549$P04.3205@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131b8uqdo89lp38@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I don't hear that many complaints from the people who live on the cliff
> > above Swan Island - and that includes some fairly pricey homes.
>
> What were residents saying _before_ the industrial facilities were built?
>
That's lost in history, but they probably were glad for the jobs. There's
been industry on Swan Island since probably before 1900.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:11:35
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6iMQh.20969$Jl.19114@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> >> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> > <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>-
> >>
>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >>
>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
> >> >>> >> > that
> >> >>people
> >> >>> >do
> >> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
causing
> >> >>> >problems.
> >> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by the
> > way.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
> >> >>> >> travel
> >> >>> >> to,
> >> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
worked
> >> >>better
> >> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy a
> >> >>> >> house
> >> >>> >> near where you worked.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
> > live
> >> >>near
> >> >>> >where you work.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
> >> >>>
> >> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is zoned
> >> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town that
> >> > is
> >> > zoned
> >> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it all
> > our
> >> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across
the
> >> > street
> >> > from our factories.
> >>
> >> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address. Conventional
> >> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the
> > St
> >> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done
> > inside
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
> > Toyota
> > or Chrysler plant.
>
> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there.
Because the APA has become a destitute one-not-charlie organization does
not mean that the development patterns of the past 50 years have no pleased
most people and met the needs of the nation.
To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only Chevrolet
makes cars.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:00:17
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:XDTQh.21100$Jl.3157@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:6iMQh.20969$Jl.19114@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
>> > <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>-
>> >>
>>
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> >>
>>
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
>> >> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> >> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> >> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem is
>> >> >>> >> > that
>> >> >>people
>> >> >>> >do
>> >> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
> causing
>> >> >>> >problems.
>> >> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by
>> >> >>> >> > the
>> > way.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
>> >> >>> >> travel
>> >> >>> >> to,
>> >> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
> worked
>> >> >>better
>> >> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd buy
>> >> >>> >> a
>> >> >>> >> house
>> >> >>> >> near where you worked.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having you
>> > live
>> >> >>near
>> >> >>> >where you work.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a try...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is
>> >> > zoned
>> >> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town
>> >> > that
>> >> > is
>> >> > zoned
>> >> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it
>> >> > all
>> > our
>> >> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across
> the
>> >> > street
>> >> > from our factories.
>> >>
>> >> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address.
>> >> Conventional
>> >> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but the
>> > St
>> >> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is done
>> > inside
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
>> > Toyota
>> > or Chrysler plant.
>>
>> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there.
>
> Because the APA has become a destitute one-not-charlie organization does
> not mean that the development patterns of the past 50 years have no
> pleased
> most people and met the needs of the nation.
>
> To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only Chevrolet
> makes cars.
I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if you
actually want to plan the future, vs. allowing whatever happens without a
plan. I have repeatedly asked you to put forward other schools of thought
(that involve having an actual plan) and you have repeatedly declined. So
the option at this moment if you want to have any kind of plan at all is
St Growth.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:51:27
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:olUQh.31533$nV1.27573@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:XDTQh.21100$Jl.3157@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:MJMQh.44801$sC.18589@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6iMQh.20969$Jl.19114@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:bMFQh.19344$ER1.3811@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:cj3613575j36evfg2ek902l9ai905olm45@4ax.com...
> >> >> > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:20:30 -0700, "Baxter"
> >> > <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>-
> >> >>
> >>
>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> >> >>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >> >>
> >>
>
>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >>news:its51313vpjh9p8l0mjdkmodcnh2ce3tbl@4ax.com...
> >> >> >>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:56:36 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> >> >>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >>> >news:4612d57f$0$27246$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> >> >>> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> > Bill, that is what is known as St Growth. The problem
is
> >> >> >>> >> > that
> >> >> >>people
> >> >> >>> >do
> >> >> >>> >> > not travel to the center to go out to the edge anymore,
> > causing
> >> >> >>> >problems.
> >> >> >>> >> > Chicago is the classic city for studying such problems, by
> >> >> >>> >> > the
> >> > way.
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> Silicon Valley is very much like that. There is no center to
> >> >> >>> >> travel
> >> >> >>> >> to,
> >> >> >>> >> each city has some housing, commercial, and industrial. It
> > worked
> >> >> >>better
> >> >> >>> >> when you could stay at one job for a long time, then you'd
buy
> >> >> >>> >> a
> >> >> >>> >> house
> >> >> >>> >> near where you worked.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > The whole goal of St Growth is to stop travel by having
you
> >> > live
> >> >> >>near
> >> >> >>> >where you work.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Repeal all the F'n zoning crap and maybe we could give it a
try...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>Yeah! And all Fire, Health, and Safety too! Retard!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, fine, then - we'll just live on this side of town that is
> >> >> > zoned
> >> >> > residential, and drive all the f'n way to the other side of town
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > zoned
> >> >> > industrial, and burn up billions of gallons of gas while doing it
> >> >> > all
> >> > our
> >> >> > lives, because the f'n zoning keeps us from building houses across
> > the
> >> >> > street
> >> >> > from our factories.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is exactly what St Growth is designed to address.
> >> >> Conventional
> >> >> zoning does indeed force different uses into different areas, but
the
> >> > St
> >> >> code is more about the size and shape of a building than what is
done
> >> > inside
> >> >> it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > St Growth is more a fraud than a plan. No one wants to live in a
> >> > Toyota
> >> > or Chrysler plant.
> >>
> >> The issue seems to be that there is no other type of plan out there.
> >
> > Because the APA has become a destitute one-not-charlie organization
does
> > not mean that the development patterns of the past 50 years have no
> > pleased
> > most people and met the needs of the nation.
> >
> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
Chevrolet
> > makes cars.
>
> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if you
> actually want to plan the future, vs.
Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to go, like
Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is not what
some self-centered group wants it to be.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:29:07
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
< >> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
> Chevrolet
>> > makes cars.
>>
>> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if
>> you
>> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>
> Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to go,
> like
> Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is not
> what
> some self-centered group wants it to be.
OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other ideas
on formulating urban plans? If there are so many others out there, I would
think the brilliant George Conklin would at least be able to name one. Note
"not planning" is not an acceptable answer to this question. This is not an
urban not planning forum.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 10:48:32
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
> > Chevrolet
> >> > makes cars.
> >>
> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if
> >> you
> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >
> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to go,
> > like
> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is not
> > what
> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>
> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other
ideas
> on formulating urban plans?
Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that the
quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning board
all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then spend
the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It happens
one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate everyone's
common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things get
changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well, even
owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can have
standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do (he
has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision? 5
to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand,
empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 07:09:23
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
>> > Chevrolet
>> >> > makes cars.
>> >>
>> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way if
>> >> you
>> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>> >
>> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to go,
>> > like
>> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is not
>> > what
>> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>>
>> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other
> ideas
>> on formulating urban plans?
>
> Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that the
> quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> board
> all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
> spend
> the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It happens
> one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> everyone's
> common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things get
> changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well, even
> owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can have
> standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do (he
> has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision? 5
> to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand,
> empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future.
So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:09:22
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
> >> > Chevrolet
> >> >> > makes cars.
> >> >>
> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way
if
> >> >> you
> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >> >
> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to
go,
> >> > like
> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
not
> >> > what
> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
> >>
> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other
> > ideas
> >> on formulating urban plans?
> >
> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that
the
> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> > board
> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
> > spend
> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
happens
> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> > everyone's
> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
get
> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well, even
> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can have
> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
(he
> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision?
5
> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand,
> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future.
>
> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
>
>
You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 18:04:08
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying only
>> >> > Chevrolet
>> >> >> > makes cars.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only way
> if
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way to
> go,
>> >> > like
>> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
> not
>> >> > what
>> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>> >>
>> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for other
>> > ideas
>> >> on formulating urban plans?
>> >
>> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean that
> the
>> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
>> > board
>> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and then
>> > spend
>> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> happens
>> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
>> > everyone's
>> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
> get
>> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
>> > even
>> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
>> > have
>> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
> (he
>> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The commision?
> 5
>> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by grand,
>> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false) future.
>>
>> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
>>
>>
>
> You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer some
better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was, given
all she accomplished.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:57:12
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:vffRh.28410$_a1.11888@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
only
> >> >> > Chevrolet
> >> >> >> > makes cars.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
way
> > if
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way
to
> > go,
> >> >> > like
> >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future is
> > not
> >> >> > what
> >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
> >> >>
> >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
other
> >> > ideas
> >> >> on formulating urban plans?
> >> >
> >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
that
> > the
> >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the planning
> >> > board
> >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
then
> >> > spend
> >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> > happens
> >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> >> > everyone's
> >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream, things
> > get
> >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
> >> > even
> >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
> >> > have
> >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would do
> > (he
> >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
commision?
> > 5
> >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
grand,
> >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
future.
> >>
> >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
>
> If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer some
> better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was, given
> all she accomplished.
>
>
You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise what
is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome of
hate which always praises the past.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 20:28:54
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:s1gRh.18716$PL.3614@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:vffRh.28410$_a1.11888@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> > news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
> only
>> >> >> > Chevrolet
>> >> >> >> > makes cars.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the only
> way
>> > if
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only way
> to
>> > go,
>> >> >> > like
>> >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future
>> >> >> > is
>> > not
>> >> >> > what
>> >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> other
>> >> > ideas
>> >> >> on formulating urban plans?
>> >> >
>> >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
> that
>> > the
>> >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
>> >> > planning
>> >> > board
>> >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
> then
>> >> > spend
>> >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
>> > happens
>> >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
>> >> > everyone's
>> >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
>> >> > things
>> > get
>> >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite well,
>> >> > even
>> >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we can
>> >> > have
>> >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would
>> >> > do
>> > (he
>> >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> commision?
>> > 5
>> >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> grand,
>> >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> future.
>> >>
>> >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
>>
>> If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer
>> some
>> better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was,
>> given
>> all she accomplished.
>>
>>
>
> You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
> Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
> said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise what
> is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome of
> hate which always praises the past.
I hate to tell you this, but Queen Elizabeth lived longer ago than 150
years. I assume you mean the English one with the ruff, yes? Also, I don't
think she lived to be 75 years old, so I'm not sure she could praise what
she'd hated 75 years before. Or maybe your point (in a more general sense)
is that she accomplished a lot, so obviously she looked around her and tried
to figure out what could be done better, and so that was the secret of her
success?
Perhaps you could strive for a bit more coherence in your posts?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:27:47
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:qihRh.39209$5i7.28723@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:s1gRh.18716$PL.3614@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:vffRh.28410$_a1.11888@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6AdRh.21380$Jl.15050@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:GF5Rh.28210$_a1.20481@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:4u4Rh.18549$PL.12959@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> > message
> >> >> > news:DcYQh.38069$5i7.15039@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:3SWQh.21145$Jl.9171@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >> <>> > To say that St Growth is the only way is like saying
> > only
> >> >> >> > Chevrolet
> >> >> >> >> > makes cars.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I did not say it was the only way. But it seems to be the
only
> > way
> >> > if
> >> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> >> actually want to plan the future, vs.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Wrong again. St Growth has stated that they are the only
way
> > to
> >> > go,
> >> >> >> > like
> >> >> >> > Christian fudamentalist shouting "one way." Wrong. The future
> >> >> >> > is
> >> > not
> >> >> >> > what
> >> >> >> > some self-centered group wants it to be.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
> > other
> >> >> > ideas
> >> >> >> on formulating urban plans?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
> > that
> >> > the
> >> >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
> >> >> > planning
> >> >> > board
> >> >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
> > then
> >> >> > spend
> >> >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
> >> > happens
> >> >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
> >> >> > everyone's
> >> >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
> >> >> > things
> >> > get
> >> >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite
well,
> >> >> > even
> >> >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we
can
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he would
> >> >> > do
> >> > (he
> >> >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
> > commision?
> >> > 5
> >> >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
> > grand,
> >> >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
> > future.
> >> >>
> >> >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
> >>
> >> If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer
> >> some
> >> better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was,
> >> given
> >> all she accomplished.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University of
> > Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics have
> > said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise
what
> > is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome
of
> > hate which always praises the past.
>
> I hate to tell you this, but Queen Elizabeth lived longer ago than 150
> years.
Some things never change. And the current vocabulary about "sprawl" was
firmly in place following some blasts in 1800s. The joke is that the same
vocabulary is now in place to criticize new buildings while the original
source of scorn is now seen as good. The goal is to be critical, but of
what? Anything convenient. You are a good example.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 08:04:26
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:T8qRh.86$3P3.16@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:qihRh.39209$5i7.28723@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
...
>> >> >> >> OK, so what other schools of thought should we be looking at for
>> > other
>> >> >> > ideas
>> >> >> >> on formulating urban plans?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just because the APA has become a one-note charlie does not mean
>> > that
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > quiet working of reality is not present. We saw that on the
>> >> >> > planning
>> >> >> > board
>> >> >> > all the time. As one local pol. said, "We will pass the plan and
>> > then
>> >> >> > spend
>> >> >> > the next 20 years repealing it." Which is what is happening. It
>> >> > happens
>> >> >> > one decision at a time when the commands of St Growth violate
>> >> >> > everyone's
>> >> >> > common sense. When neighborhoods show up en masse and scream,
>> >> >> > things
>> >> > get
>> >> >> > changed. Our local homeowner association has done that quite
> well,
>> >> >> > even
>> >> >> > owing about 1 square foot of a local business development so we
> can
>> >> >> > have
>> >> >> > standing to sue if the developer does not do what he said he
>> >> >> > would
>> >> >> > do
>> >> > (he
>> >> >> > has), but the planners were 100% furious with the deal. The
>> > commision?
>> >> > 5
>> >> >> > to 0 in favor of us. That is how progress gets made, but not by
>> > grand,
>> >> >> > empty and vapid promises of some great and glorious (and false)
>> > future.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So in other words you can't offer another school of thought.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > You shound like Queen Elizabeth the First.
>> >>
>> >> If Queen Elizabeth the first demanded that people who criticize offer
>> >> some
>> >> better alternative, then she was one st lady. I suspect she was,
>> >> given
>> >> all she accomplished.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > You need to look at the book "Sprawl: A Compact History." (University
>> > of
>> > Chicago Press, 2005). Cities have always sprawled and the critics
>> > have
>> > said the very same words for the past 150 years. But NOW they praise
> what
>> > is 75 years old, while back then they hated that too. It is a syndrome
> of
>> > hate which always praises the past.
>>
>> I hate to tell you this, but Queen Elizabeth lived longer ago than 150
>> years.
>
> Some things never change. And the current vocabulary about "sprawl" was
> firmly in place following some blasts in 1800s. The joke is that the same
> vocabulary is now in place to criticize new buildings while the original
> source of scorn is now seen as good. The goal is to be critical, but of
> what? Anything convenient. You are a good example.
Please learn to snip.
You're damned right I will criticize a university professor who does not
know that Queen Elizabeth the First was WAY before the 1800's! Idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:07:22
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> > > aspects of this predicament.
> >
> > > Jobst Brandt
> >
> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them talking
> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be Iran
> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> > Don't tell Bush.
> > It would ruin his ego trip.
> > Bill Baka
>
> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid: it is the
stest thing America has ever done.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 15:46:33
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 7, 4:05 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>
> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > -
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> >news:50ERh.28992$_a1.28425@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some
> >> sort
> >> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> >> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
> > attention.
> >> Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely
> > wiped
> >> off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of
> > some
> >> sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
> >> the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get
> > back
> >> to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New
> > Orleans
> >> chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
> >> failed them so badly in power.
>
> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
> > on
> > our own nation?
>
> Bush has a guilty conscience-
You are assuming he has one. That's kind of optimistic, isn't it? ;)
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 18:13:07
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
>> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>> > > aspects of this predicament.
>> >
>> > > Jobst Brandt
>> >
>> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
>> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them talking
>> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
>> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be Iran
>> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
>> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
>> > Don't tell Bush.
>> > It would ruin his ego trip.
>> > Bill Baka
>>
>> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
>> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
>
> You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid: it is the
> stest thing America has ever done.
Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is perfectly
possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute to
sprawl.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:54:03
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 6, 8:01 am, Chris <c...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
> > have
> > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
> > impossible in 1890 too.
>
> Your children, depending on your age, your grandchildfren will once
> again see a 'walkable city' when the oil runs out
Or when Venezuela breaks relations with the US, the troops abandon
Iraq and the Oil Kingdom is toppled.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:29:47
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175896443.161282.318920@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 8:01 am, Chris <c...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The walkable city disappeared before industrialization. You cannot
> > > have
> > > a modern city with walking the main way to get around. It was
> > > impossible in 1890 too.
> >
> > Your children, depending on your age, your grandchildfren will once
> > again see a 'walkable city' when the oil runs out
>
> Or when Venezuela breaks relations with the US, the troops abandon
> Iraq and the Oil Kingdom is toppled.
>
The anti-trolley people were saying the same thing: wait until the
trolley breaks down. That ended the walkable city, and the modern
industrial city could not exist without mechanized transport. If you are
talking about putting people back on farms, then most of us would die off
because it would kill the efficiency which we need to feed ourselves.
Walkable cities are non-sustainable.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 16:40:54
From: drydem
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
On Apr 14, 12:31 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> > On 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> > <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
>
> > Windmills are a good supplement. In the U.S. with tax breaks and
> > setasides, even the oil companies are buying lots, but its a huge
> > investment and it doesn't add up to much as a percentage of the power
> > needed and in the windiest areas they aren't reliable enough to
> > support even a small grid on their own. Windmills are not a solution.
>
> > Curtis L. Russell
> > Odenton, MD (USA)
> > Just someone on two wheels...
>
> Has anybody looked at the current generation of high-tech (sic) windmills?
> They are a joke, and bird killers to boot.
> The best windmill designs were those that were in use in the 1930's when
> the TVA project demanded that a farmer take down or disable his windmill
> to get power to the farm. Obviously that would take enough electricity
> to pay for running out the electricity so the farmer could have electric
> lights. The new, 3 skinny blade windmills are a joke since 90% of the
> air pass right through the gaps.
> The intake vanes of a modern jet engine show how a windmill should be
> designed, along with a feathering mechanism for windy days.
> Too much thinking for the current crop of over-educated dimwits.
> Bill Baka
The best hi tech windmills are from germany - they have
variable vane/airfoils that can adjust to the windspeed.
They are very tall structures and generate quite a bit of
power. Some environmentalist are worried that these
structures represent a danger to birds - I haven't come
across any scientific studies verifying this risk though.
The reason the blades/vanes are very thin is that this
design can structurally handle higher wind forces
and thus is more resistance to damage from high
winds. Lighter thinner blades require less wind
force to reach the minumum speed needed for
electric generation faster than if the windmill blades
were heavier and larger.
The intake vanes of a turbojet are designed to
runs at a different speed and different magnitude
of force than a windmill. There are similarities
in a turbojet's intake vanes and that of a
hydro electric generator's turbine. Nuclear
power plants that use hi pressure steam also
have electric generator turbines that look
similar to a turbojet's vanes.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 15:47:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
drydem wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:31 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>>> On 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>>> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
>>> Windmills are a good supplement. In the U.S. with tax breaks and
>>> setasides, even the oil companies are buying lots, but its a huge
>>> investment and it doesn't add up to much as a percentage of the power
>>> needed and in the windiest areas they aren't reliable enough to
>>> support even a small grid on their own. Windmills are not a solution.
>>> Curtis L. Russell
>>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>>> Just someone on two wheels...
>> Has anybody looked at the current generation of high-tech (sic) windmills?
>> They are a joke, and bird killers to boot.
>> The best windmill designs were those that were in use in the 1930's when
>> the TVA project demanded that a farmer take down or disable his windmill
>> to get power to the farm. Obviously that would take enough electricity
>> to pay for running out the electricity so the farmer could have electric
>> lights. The new, 3 skinny blade windmills are a joke since 90% of the
>> air pass right through the gaps.
>> The intake vanes of a modern jet engine show how a windmill should be
>> designed, along with a feathering mechanism for windy days.
>> Too much thinking for the current crop of over-educated dimwits.
>> Bill Baka
>
> The best hi tech windmills are from germany - they have
> variable vane/airfoils that can adjust to the windspeed.
> They are very tall structures and generate quite a bit of
> power. Some environmentalist are worried that these
> structures represent a danger to birds - I haven't come
> across any scientific studies verifying this risk though.
>
> The reason the blades/vanes are very thin is that this
> design can structurally handle higher wind forces
> and thus is more resistance to damage from high
> winds. Lighter thinner blades require less wind
> force to reach the minumum speed needed for
> electric generation faster than if the windmill blades
> were heavier and larger.
The reason the blades are thin is they LOOK hi-tech.
When I see a big wind generator all I see is inefficiency.
Most of the wind goes through the HUGE gap between the blades.
When birds try to do that most get through but some get nailed by the
next blade. I won't try to debate with you since if you don't understand
now I doubt that you ever will.
Bill Baka
>
> The intake vanes of a turbojet are designed to
> runs at a different speed and different magnitude
> of force than a windmill. There are similarities
> in a turbojet's intake vanes and that of a
> hydro electric generator's turbine. Nuclear
> power plants that use hi pressure steam also
> have electric generator turbines that look
> similar to a turbojet's vanes.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Apr 2007 19:17:32
From: di
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:k3TUh.4450$H_5.335@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> I won't try to debate with you since if you don't understand now I doubt
> that you ever will.
> Bill Baka
>>
Hold this up to a mirror and read it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 23:55:29
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth
is
> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
> >> >
> >> > > Jobst Brandt
> >> >
> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them
talking
> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be
Iran
> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> >> > Don't tell Bush.
> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
> >> > Bill Baka
> >>
> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
> >
> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid: it is
the
> > stest thing America has ever done.
>
> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is perfectly
> possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute to
> sprawl.
>
>
St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just this week the
New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we must
discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We are
concentrating in too few places.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 15:01:51
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: a money-making scheme
|
On Apr 6, 1:18 pm, Tim McNaa <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
> > Of course they claim to adhere to the "St Growth" principles. The
> > problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
> > jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are
> > going to be the fallout of "St Growth."
>
> Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
> no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
> distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
> eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
> curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
> barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
> with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
> franchises.
Gee. Is that planned or unplanned? Either way it seems like a money-
making scheme.
Or is it the ultimate expression of freedom that people can readily
choose between McDonalds and Burger King when eating out?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:24:30
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:RPBQh.134063$_73.57920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth
> is
>> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Jobst Brandt
>> >> >
>> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
>> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them
> talking
>> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
>> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be
> Iran
>> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear
>> >> > toy
>> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
>> >> > Don't tell Bush.
>> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
>> >> > Bill Baka
>> >>
>> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
>> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
>> >
>> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid: it is
> the
>> > stest thing America has ever done.
>>
>> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is perfectly
>> possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute to
>> sprawl.
>>
>>
>
> St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just this week
> the
> New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we must
> discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
> population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We are
> concentrating in too few places.
So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that _you_
suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 11:50:17
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
gargantuan sum of money...
Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
in U.S. corporate history.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 14:01:03
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
> gargantuan sum of money...
>
> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>
> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
> in U.S. corporate history.
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>
> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>
That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas to
be headed towards the $4/gallon k and the CEO's and oil shareholders
making obscene profits is just not right. They should be hurting along
with the rest of the country, not getting richer at the expense of
everyone else in the country.
Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler tax
either.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 22:09:54
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
In article <KCcSh.1960$Q23.171@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net >, Bill wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
> That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
> industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet).
FYI: Occidental is the pet oil company of the Gore family.
Not that shrub doesn't have pet oil companies, but Occidental isn't his.
While vice president Al Gore gave Occidental a deal that made teapot dome
look small.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 15:40:10
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
Bill wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
>> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
>> gargantuan sum of money...
>>
>> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>>
>> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
>> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
>> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
>> in U.S. corporate history.
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>>
>> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>>
> That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
> industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas to
> be headed towards the $4/gallon k and the CEO's and oil shareholders
> making obscene profits is just not right. They should be hurting along
> with the rest of the country,
Why?
The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
people starving to put gas in their cars.
> not getting richer at the expense of
> everyone else in the country.
Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
(and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?
> Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler tax
> either.
Why should he?
> Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
>>> gargantuan sum of money...
>>>
>>> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>>>
>>> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
>>> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
>>> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
>>> in U.S. corporate history.
>>>
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>>>
>>> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>>>
>> That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
>> industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas
>> to be headed towards the $4/gallon k and the CEO's and oil
>> shareholders making obscene profits is just not right. They should be
>> hurting along with the rest of the country,
>
> Why?
>
> The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
> spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
> people starving to put gas in their cars.
This only shows the stupidity of some (most?) Americans. I have 2 little
4 bangers and just to drive the 11 mile round trip to see my friend is
over a dollar. I can ride a bike there but sometimes I am carrying
computer equipment. It is a LITTLE car I drive and all the stuff fits.
So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>
>> not getting richer at the expense of everyone else in the country.
>
> Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
> (and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?
If you mean a Bush owned oil industry, then Hell no! I know the CEOs
take an unfair share of the money, but the government would set up so
many study committees that it would take more money than the CEOs cost.
>
>> Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler
>> tax either.
>
> Why should he?
Because after 8 years he should be remembered for getting at least one
thing right.
>
>> Bill Baka
Again.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 09:41:16
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>Again.
People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
either.
5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
Dave Head wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>
>
>>Again.
>
>
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
That's the reason some people drive them. Others drive them for no good
reason other than we have a thing called freedom in the US.
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
>
I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove by
them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because they
couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they thought
their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that hadn't yet
been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass" their SUV really is.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 02:56:57
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > wrote:
>I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove by
>them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because they
>couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they thought
>their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that hadn't yet
>been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass" their SUV really is.
Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with the all
terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.
DPH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
In article <e6vl131791s7o4dstcovsshorrr50c7s1u@4ax.com >,
Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
> <nospam@dont.spam> wrote:
>
> >I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove
> >by them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because
> >they couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they
> >thought their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that
> >hadn't yet been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass"
> >their SUV really is.
>
> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.
You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 03:49:57
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <e6vl131791s7o4dstcovsshorrr50c7s1u@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>> <nospam@dont.spam> wrote:
>>
>> >I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove
>> >by them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because
>> >they couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they
>> >thought their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that
>> >hadn't yet been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass"
>> >their SUV really is.
>>
>> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
>> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.
>
>You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
>deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.
And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which is to
rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you then
get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.
DPH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 11:54:27
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:v92m13penfh9ficc6iu8u228g7g6teg59k@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <e6vl131791s7o4dstcovsshorrr50c7s1u@4ax.com>,
>> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>>> <nospam@dont.spam> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove
>>> >by them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because
>>> >they couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they
>>> >thought their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that
>>> >hadn't yet been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass"
>>> >their SUV really is.
>>>
>>> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
>>> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.
>>
>>You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
>>deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.
>
> And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which
> is to
> rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you
> then
> get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.
>
> DPH
I've never seen a rental car with worn-out tires.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 11:56:52
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:54:27 GMT, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:v92m13penfh9ficc6iu8u228g7g6teg59k@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:31:55 -0500, Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <e6vl131791s7o4dstcovsshorrr50c7s1u@4ax.com>,
>>> Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:26 -0700, "Fred G. Mackey"
>>>> <nospam@dont.spam> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >I had a good laugh at a few of these people last winter as I drove
>>>> >by them in my coupe while they were either stuck - either because
>>>> >they couldn't manage to control their "lame ass SUV" or because they
>>>> >thought their SUV was tough enough to make it through deep snow that
>>>> >hadn't yet been plowed and found out the hard way how "lame ass"
>>>> >their SUV really is.
>>>>
>>>> Next big snow, U bring your coupe, I'll bring my Jeep Cherokee with
>>>> the all terrain tires, and we'll see who gets stuck.
>>>
>>>You just identified one of the key things: tires. Most any car will
>>>deal with snow just fine unless it's riding on unsuitable tires.
>>
>> And its the main reason you can't do what the anti-SUV'ers suggest, which
>> is to
>> rent one when you need one. The rentals all have smooth tires, and you
>> then
>> get stuck anyway, 4WD or not.
>>
>> DPH
>
>I've never seen a rental car with worn-out tires.
>
They're not worn-out, they're "all season", which, in deep snow, are about as
useful as tits on a boar hog.
DPH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 20:27:32
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:41:16 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net > wrote:
>People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
>money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
>1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
>anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
>
That would explain why the most common vehicle stuck in the middle of
the snow bank is a SUV. We didn't have SUVs back in the 1960s and got
to work just fine in Michigan.
>2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
>safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
>putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
Well, my mid-sized car would take two child seats in the back and have
room for another kid. It could carry two adults and four kids, two in
child seats.
>3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
>Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
If it doesn't have a 4 foot by 8 foot bed, it is just like any other
vehicle. Pick up drivers are probably laughing their asses off over
this one.
>4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
>SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
>people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
>either.
Interestingly, most SUVs can barely carry their own weight, and that
includes most of the ones you see on the road. You have to pick your
SUV or pickup carefully to get one that can carry a payload.
>5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
>it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
Bull - the ket is what killed the station wagon, not safety
regulations. If a modern station wagon was built (arguably a Pacifica
is one), it could easily be safer than a SUV - way safer.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 22:29:57
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
In article <m4ml13dk00aeh8e4de5lf884ff06o3brsf@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 09:41:16 GMT, Dave Head <rally2xs@att.net> wrote:
>
> >People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and
> >only have money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one
> >because:
> >
> >1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to
> >drive it, and anything else they might buy has a higher chance of
> >getting stuck in the snow.
> >
> That would explain why the most common vehicle stuck in the middle of
> the snow bank is a SUV. We didn't have SUVs back in the 1960s and got
> to work just fine in Michigan.
ROFL! I had this conversation earlier this year, when an SUV-driving,
rabid modern Republican began bitching about gas prices and declaring
that the government had better do something to bring the price down.
(Yup. Irony abounded). She gave most of the arguments described here.
I drove to work in a blizzard- twice as far as she did- in my 16 year
old Volvo 240. Didn't have the slightest problem. In fact I've not had
any more trouble with the Volvo in Minnesota snow than I did with my old
Bronco II (although the BII *did* drive through unplowed streets after a
28" snowfall without any trouble, but that kind of thing is really rare).
<snip >
> >5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws
> >have made it all but impossible to build those, so the next best
> >thing is an SUV.
>
> Bull - the ket is what killed the station wagon, not safety
> regulations. If a modern station wagon was built (arguably a Pacifica
> is one), it could easily be safer than a SUV - way safer.
An SUV *is* a station wagon. Don't tell anyone.
BTW speaking of modern station wagons:
http://www.volvocars.us/models/v50/
http://www.volvocars.us/models/v70/
http://www.volvocars.us/models/xc70/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 06:49:05
From: di
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net > wrote in message
news:uq1k13to4ng3jvspa64975k4mjqh962j7e@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>
>>Again.
>
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only
> have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it,
> and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the
> snow.
>
> 2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
> safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
> putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
>
> 3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff
> from
> Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
>
> 4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and
> the
> SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job.
> Some
> people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
> either.
>
> 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
> made
> it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
>
Number 6, they might just want one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:56:30
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 06:49:05 -0500, "di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Dave Head" <rally2xs@att.net> wrote in message
>news:uq1k13to4ng3jvspa64975k4mjqh962j7e@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>>
>>>Again.
>>
>> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only
>> have
>> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>>
>> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it,
>> and
>> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the
>> snow.
>>
>> 2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
>> safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
>> putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
>>
>> 3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff
>> from
>> Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
>>
>> 4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and
>> the
>> SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job.
>> Some
>> people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
>> either.
>>
>> 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
>> made
>> it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
>>
>
>Number 6, they might just want one.
>
There is that, too.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:48:12
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:ReCQh.30678$Wc.2207@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:RPBQh.134063$_73.57920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth".
"St"
> >> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of
growth
> > is
> >> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are
visible
> >> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Jobst Brandt
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to
grow
> >> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them
> > talking
> >> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten
years
> >> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be
> > Iran
> >> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear
> >> >> > toy
> >> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> >> >> > Don't tell Bush.
> >> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
> >> >> > Bill Baka
> >> >>
> >> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl) is
> >> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
> >> >
> >> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid: it
is
> > the
> >> > stest thing America has ever done.
> >>
> >> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is
perfectly
> >> possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute to
> >> sprawl.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just this week
> > the
> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we must
> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We are
> > concentrating in too few places.
>
> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that _you_
> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
>
>
I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it now has
doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in the few
places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms, hobby
farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like. Just
yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live within 50
miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate, but it
probably was close.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 07:17:53
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:0gMQh.20966$Jl.19100@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:ReCQh.30678$Wc.2207@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:RPBQh.134063$_73.57920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> >> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth".
> "St"
>> >> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of
> growth
>> > is
>> >> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are
> visible
>> >> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > Jobst Brandt
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to
> grow
>> >> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them
>> > talking
>> >> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten
> years
>> >> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be
>> > Iran
>> >> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear
>> >> >> > toy
>> >> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
>> >> >> > Don't tell Bush.
>> >> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
>> >> >> > Bill Baka
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl)
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
>> >> >
>> >> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid: it
> is
>> > the
>> >> > stest thing America has ever done.
>> >>
>> >> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is
> perfectly
>> >> possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute to
>> >> sprawl.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just this
>> > week
>> > the
>> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we must
>> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
>> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We are
>> > concentrating in too few places.
>>
>> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that _you_
>> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
>>
>>
>
> I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it now has
> doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in the few
> places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms, hobby
> farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like. Just
> yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live within 50
> miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate, but it
> probably was close.
How does that address your feeling that people are concentrating in "too
few" places?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:10:02
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:EHMQh.44800$sC.28075@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:0gMQh.20966$Jl.19100@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:ReCQh.30678$Wc.2207@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:RPBQh.134063$_73.57920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> >> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth".
> > "St"
> >> >> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of
> > growth
> >> > is
> >> >> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are
> > visible
> >> >> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Jobst Brandt
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to
> > grow
> >> >> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them
> >> > talking
> >> >> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten
> > years
> >> >> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may
be
> >> > Iran
> >> >> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a
nuclear
> >> >> >> > toy
> >> >> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> >> >> >> > Don't tell Bush.
> >> >> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
> >> >> >> > Bill Baka
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth (Sprawl)
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid:
it
> > is
> >> > the
> >> >> > stest thing America has ever done.
> >> >>
> >> >> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is
> > perfectly
> >> >> possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute
to
> >> >> sprawl.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just this
> >> > week
> >> > the
> >> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we
must
> >> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
> >> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We are
> >> > concentrating in too few places.
> >>
> >> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that _you_
> >> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it now has
> > doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in the
few
> > places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms, hobby
> > farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like. Just
> > yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live within 50
> > miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate, but
it
> > probably was close.
>
> How does that address your feeling that people are concentrating in "too
> few" places?
>
>
I accept that and suggest we deal with it by not harking back to a past
that did not exist.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 10:45:35
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Bush could used those taxes for
|
On Apr 8, 6:40 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam > wrote:
> Bill wrote:
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> Talking about a Darwinian world, here's one of the oil kings making a
> >> gargantuan sum of money...
>
> >> Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
>
> >> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief
> >> executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year,
> >> the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts
> >> in U.S. corporate history.
>
> >>http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070407/occidentalpetroleum_pay.html?.v=8
>
> >> But, see, bicycles only make peanuts for them. :(
>
> > That just proves that there is a huge amount of corruption in both the
> > industry as well as the presidency (Bush == big oil puppet). For gas to
> > be headed towards the $4/gallon k and the CEO's and oil shareholders
> > making obscene profits is just not right. They should be hurting along
> > with the rest of the country,
>
> Why?
>
> The rest of the country really isn't hurting that much - sure we're
> spending more on gas, but demand hasn't gone down significantly, nor are
> people starving to put gas in their cars.
Maybe the filthy rich and upper middle class aren't hurting that much,
but those at the botom are...
Cost of war filtering down to states, cities
By STEVEN K. PAULSON Associated Press Writer
DENVER (AP) - The cost of the Iraq war is filtering down to state and
local budgets, forcing cuts in transportation funding, Medicaid,
education and other federally subsidized programs, according to
analysts and lawmakers.
Just how big that impact has been is unclear. What state lawmakers do
say is that the $456 billion already spent or appropriated for the war
could have gone a long way toward helping them balance their own
budgets.
In Colorado, lawmakers expect to lose about $200 million in federal
funding for the next fiscal year, forcing the state to cut back on
programs that receive federal money.
"These are funds that we aren't going to receive. Low Energy
Assistance Program, $9.8 million, gone. Head Start, $3.7 million,
gone. Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1.1 million. Community
Development Block Grant, $13.5 million. Special Ed, $8.8 million,"
House Majority Leader Alice Madden, D-Boulder, said during a debate
Thursday over a state resolution opposing the escalation of the war in
Iraq.
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2007/04/09/helena/000cost.txt
>
> > not getting richer at the expense of
> > everyone else in the country.
>
> Would you prefer a gov't owned oil industry - like Mexico or Venezuela
> (and I presume many middle eastern countries) have?
When the goverment is owned by Big Oil, what's the diff?
>
> > Of course, you don't see Bush even thinking about an SUV gas guzzler tax
> > either.
>
> Why should he?
Because then he could used those taxes for a) pay for the war and
b)subsidize alternative transportation.
The flag waving SUVs shows what classes are for the war: those at the
top of the food chain.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 15:58:08
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:uCTQh.21099$Jl.3206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:EHMQh.44800$sC.28075@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:0gMQh.20966$Jl.19100@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ReCQh.30678$Wc.2207@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:RPBQh.134063$_73.57920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> > news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> >> >> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth".
>> > "St"
>> >> >> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of
>> > growth
>> >> > is
>> >> >> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are
>> > visible
>> >> >> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > Jobst Brandt
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to
>> > grow
>> >> >> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them
>> >> > talking
>> >> >> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten
>> > years
>> >> >> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may
> be
>> >> > Iran
>> >> >> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a
> nuclear
>> >> >> >> > toy
>> >> >> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
>> >> >> >> > Don't tell Bush.
>> >> >> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
>> >> >> >> > Bill Baka
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth
>> >> >> >> (Sprawl)
>> >> >> >> is
>> >> >> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid:
> it
>> > is
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > stest thing America has ever done.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is
>> > perfectly
>> >> >> possible to provide single family housing that does not contribute
> to
>> >> >> sprawl.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just this
>> >> > week
>> >> > the
>> >> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we
> must
>> >> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
>> >> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We are
>> >> > concentrating in too few places.
>> >>
>> >> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that _you_
>> >> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it now
>> > has
>> > doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in the
> few
>> > places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms,
>> > hobby
>> > farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like. Just
>> > yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live within 50
>> > miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate, but
> it
>> > probably was close.
>>
>> How does that address your feeling that people are concentrating in "too
>> few" places?
>>
>>
> I accept that and suggest we deal with it by not harking back to a past
> that did not exist.
So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be solved?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:50:01
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:ojUQh.31530$nV1.22591@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:uCTQh.21099$Jl.3206@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:EHMQh.44800$sC.28075@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:0gMQh.20966$Jl.19100@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:ReCQh.30678$Wc.2207@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:RPBQh.134063$_73.57920@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> > message
> >> >> > news:77BQh.36012$5i7.22449@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > At this time in human history there is no "St growth".
> >> > "St"
> >> >> >> >> > > could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme
of
> >> > growth
> >> >> > is
> >> >> >> >> > > the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are
> >> > visible
> >> >> >> >> > > aspects of this predicament.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > Jobst Brandt
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue
to
> >> > grow
> >> >> >> >> > exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of
them
> >> >> > talking
> >> >> >> >> > up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within
ten
> >> > years
> >> >> >> >> > somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it
may
> > be
> >> >> > Iran
> >> >> >> >> > or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a
> > nuclear
> >> >> >> >> > toy
> >> >> >> >> > one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
> >> >> >> >> > Don't tell Bush.
> >> >> >> >> > It would ruin his ego trip.
> >> >> >> >> > Bill Baka
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I see its flaws, but also bear in mind the Stupid Growth
> >> >> >> >> (Sprawl)
> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> worse than St Growth (Planned Communities).
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > You have this backwards. Single-family housing is not stupid:
> > it
> >> > is
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > stest thing America has ever done.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Where there does he say single family housing is stupid? It is
> >> > perfectly
> >> >> >> possible to provide single family housing that does not
contribute
> > to
> >> >> >> sprawl.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just
this
> >> >> > week
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we
> > must
> >> >> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But the
> >> >> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We
are
> >> >> > concentrating in too few places.
> >> >>
> >> >> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that _you_
> >> >> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it now
> >> > has
> >> > doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in
the
> > few
> >> > places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms,
> >> > hobby
> >> > farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like. Just
> >> > yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live within
50
> >> > miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate,
but
> > it
> >> > probably was close.
> >>
> >> How does that address your feeling that people are concentrating in
"too
> >> few" places?
> >>
> >>
> > I accept that and suggest we deal with it by not harking back to a
past
> > that did not exist.
>
> So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be solved?
>
>
I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in the
past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real problems
since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a carefully-constructed
lie.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:25:41
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:JQWQh.21144$Jl.7727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> >> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >> > message
>> >> >> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
<stuff snipped >
>> >> >> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just
> this
>> >> >> > week
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that we
>> > must
>> >> >> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We
> are
>> >> >> > concentrating in too few places.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that
>> >> >> _you_
>> >> >> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it now
>> >> > has
>> >> > doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in
> the
>> > few
>> >> > places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms,
>> >> > hobby
>> >> > farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like.
>> >> > Just
>> >> > yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live within
> 50
>> >> > miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate,
> but
>> > it
>> >> > probably was close.
>> >>
>> >> How does that address your feeling that people are concentrating in
> "too
>> >> few" places?
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I accept that and suggest we deal with it by not harking back to a
> past
>> > that did not exist.
>>
>> So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
>> solved?
>>
>>
>
> I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in
> the
> past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real problems
> since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
> carefully-constructed
> lie.
I did not say that you did. Only that you've said that people are
concentrating in too few places. That implies that you think people should
be concentrating in more places, or perhaps that they should not concentrate
at all. Since you haven't clarified what you meant by that, it is difficult
to guess.
-Amy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 10:44:46
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:q9YQh.38068$5i7.11147@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JQWQh.21144$Jl.7727@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
>
> >> >> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
> >> >> >> >> news:_tyQh.17976$PL.10678@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> >> >> >> > message
> >> >> >> >> > news:1175626404.986361.237460@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 2, 10:19 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> <stuff snipped>
> >> >> >> > St Growth strongly discourages single-family housing. Just
> > this
> >> >> >> > week
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > New York Times had a good article on the subject, stating that
we
> >> > must
> >> >> >> > discourage single-family housing in order to stop sprawl. But
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > population is not sprawling anyway: it is a fabricated lie. We
> > are
> >> >> >> > concentrating in too few places.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So if we're concentrating in "too few" places, what is it that
> >> >> >> _you_
> >> >> >> suggest? All the farmers staying on their land?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I suggest we realize that farming needs only the 1% of people it
now
> >> >> > has
> >> >> > doing most of the work, and let the others build what they need in
> > the
> >> > few
> >> >> > places people are concentrating without tax-supported horse farms,
> >> >> > hobby
> >> >> > farms and romantic notions of what small farms were (not) like.
> >> >> > Just
> >> >> > yesterday the census announced that 50% of Americans now live
within
> > 50
> >> >> > miles of the oceans...I am not sure if the TV report was accurate,
> > but
> >> > it
> >> >> > probably was close.
> >> >>
> >> >> How does that address your feeling that people are concentrating in
> > "too
> >> >> few" places?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > I accept that and suggest we deal with it by not harking back to a
> > past
> >> > that did not exist.
> >>
> >> So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
> >> solved?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in
> > the
> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real problems
> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
> > carefully-constructed
> > lie.
>
> I did not say that you did. Only that you've said that people are
> concentrating in too few places. That implies that you think people
should
> be concentrating in more places, or perhaps that they should not
concentrate
> at all. Since you haven't clarified what you meant by that, it is
difficult
> to guess.
>
> -Amy
>
Ok, historically we were moe spread out, ok? By historical standards, we
are concentrating in too few places. It is not a moral statement, but a
statement of fact. So the population is desprawling as a whole. St
Growth tries to deny demographic reality with dreams of a past which never
existed. It is going a great deal of harm in the process.
|
| |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 11:33:53
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Bicycles are discriminated against
|
On 31, 7:23 am, "di" wrote:
> > I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws so
> > that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> > vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> > others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
> > 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3 month
> > license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could commit
> > the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>
> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot down,
Of course, it'll be shot down by big money --the money behind SUVs.
Bicycles are discriminated against on a daily basis and nothing
happens.
In my outing yesterday, I rode the busy road fine and the cars had to
go around me. My girlfriend, however, being a novice, decided to play
it safe and ride the sidewalks. So I had to wait for her for an
eternity in less than a mile.
Of course, I then explained to her that that was humiliating and not
any safer to begin with, besides being slower. So we rode on quiet
streets like vehicles. Later, though, riding another busy street, she
was shouted at this: "STAY OFF THE ROADS!"
I guess most people at this stage give up, but she loves me and she
loved the ride. So she's getting ready for next time, when we may wear
one of my T-shirts with the slogan "YOU CAN EAT MY BANANA!" in a sort
of pre-emptive strike, short of giving them the finger.
You may buy these T-shirts here...
http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235656225030036008
|
| |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 20:11:55
From: drydem
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 31, 4:23 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "drydem" <walter_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175298936.424948.119890@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...> On 30, 12:43 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>
> messagenews:ivqq035a9pgao0qd6045lei9ji5nfoi2s4@4ax.com...
>
> > > > On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
> > > > (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
> > > > >In article
>
> <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > >George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > > >>> population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> > > > >> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
> > > > >Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> > > > Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
> > > > give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
> > > > laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
> > > > family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
> > > > influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
> > > > condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the character
> > > > of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
> > > > residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
> > > > given suburb can't afford to live there.
>
> > > The more dense housing gets, the MORE it costs.-
>
> > When the type of construction method
> > (sticks n bricks) stays the same the cost of
> > housing cost per capita (inital cost and
> > also maintaince cost) cost DROPS as the housing
> > density per capita increases when the housing type
> > changes from a single family structure to a
> > townhouse to a duplex to a condo/apartment.
>
> Except that is not true. Higher taxes are needed to pay for more
> expensive services, including high costs of running utilities, much higher
> police costs and higher governmental costs in general. Helen Ladd proved
> that years ago. Further, if apartments cost less, it is because they are
> much, much smaller. You can, using St Growth, turn a 2,400 square foot
> house into 3 apartments, each costing about half of the cost of the
> undivided house. That represents much higher profit for the builder, NOT
> lower costs.-
False.
Higher taxes per capita are not necessary. Utilities are
not necessarily more expensive, police coverage
per capita cost is not necessarily higher, nor is the
cost per capita for government general administration higher.
However, as the population increases a government
tends to collect more tax dollars.
|
| |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 12:59:22
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On 31, 1:10 am, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> > right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
>
> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
> so that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that
> doing 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a
> 3 month license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they
> could commit the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.-
OK, if you run for the presidence, even on that single issue, I'd vote
for you. Now, you only need about $20 million to get this far in this
presidential race, which has broken all records for money spent at
this early stage.
When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 16:52:41
From: di
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175543962.283611.114530@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 31, 1:10 am, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> OK, if you run for the presidence, even on that single issue, I'd vote
> for you. Now, you only need about $20 million to get this far in this
> presidential race, which has broken all records for money spent at
> this early stage.
Spell checkers are free.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 20:36:42
From: Bill
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
> whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
>
Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to life."
or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to have
gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and some
other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually evaluate
all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
I hate politics.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 12:47:04
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 29, 11:58 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:
> In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>
> George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> >> population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
> Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.
As much as you hate people having a good time riding bikes on the
road? I don't think so.
|
| |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 12:45:38
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Deserving riders was Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 29, 9:07 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote:
> On 29 2007 11:24:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>
> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>much snipped
>
> >--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
> >options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
> >dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
> >not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
> >of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--
>
> >Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> >population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
> >affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
> >the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
> >a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
> >them deserve no respect, neither good service.
>
> While I have many gripes with New Jersey Transit, they manage to
> provide normally clean buses (or at least did up until last year) with
> cushioned seats. This includes routes that go through the Central
> Ward of Newark, New Jersey. I have ridden them on the 34 ket and
> 21 Orange. It can be done and most of the riders do deserve the
> respect. I am thinking especially of those who have to take long
> reverse commutes to the suburbs for probably not fantastic pay.
I have a gripe against them using loud --very loud-- public
announcers, telling everything, from the street you are on --you know,
you are blind-- to the fact that you shouldn't occupy more than one
seat --on an empty bus. Of course, all peace and quite is gone, and
staying away from them is the only option.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 01:15:16
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Deserving riders was Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 2 Apr 2007 12:45:38 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On 29, 9:07 pm, Clark F Morris <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On 29 2007 11:24:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>>
>> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>much snipped
>>
>> >--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
>> >options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
>> >dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
>> >not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
>> >of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--
>>
>> >Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
>> >population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
>> >affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
>> >the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
>> >a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
>> >them deserve no respect, neither good service.
>>
>> While I have many gripes with New Jersey Transit, they manage to
>> provide normally clean buses (or at least did up until last year) with
>> cushioned seats. This includes routes that go through the Central
>> Ward of Newark, New Jersey. I have ridden them on the 34 ket and
>> 21 Orange. It can be done and most of the riders do deserve the
>> respect. I am thinking especially of those who have to take long
>> reverse commutes to the suburbs for probably not fantastic pay.
>
>I have a gripe against them using loud --very loud-- public
>announcers, telling everything, from the street you are on --you know,
>you are blind-- to the fact that you shouldn't occupy more than one
>seat --on an empty bus. Of course, all peace and quite is gone, and
>staying away from them is the only option.
When did New Jersey Transit start this? The announcements for the
blind may be mandated by ADA rules although I don't know how loud they
are required to be.
|
| |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 12:10:20
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On 29, 5:35 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
unbreakable --into the Everglades.
And that's happening everywhere...
STEMMING SPRAWL
Sanford talks of planning growth
S.C. population expected to surge by 1.3 million in 2 decades
CHARLESTON --South Carolina's population will swell by 1.3 million in
two decades, and making st decisions about growth will help it be
more nationally competitive for business, jobs and retirees, Gov. k
Sanford told a conference this week.
Not many Republican governors have made growth planning a priority.
But the conference in Charleston's historic Dock Street Theatre
fulfills a pledge Sanford made in his State of the State address two
months ago.
Surprisingly to some, the libertarian-leaning governor did not rule
out promoting statewide "st growth" initiatives that aim to stem
suburban sprawl and improve air and water quality.
http://charlotte.com/122/story/65705.html
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 09:27:51
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
> before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
> did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
> unbreakable --into the Everglades.
So-called "St Growth" is heavily promoted by developers because it's
a much more profitable use of land for them than single family homes, or
using the land for commercial and industrial. They've conned some
environmental groups into supporting them as well.
Unfortunately, these high-density developments are rarely accompanied by
sufficient road improvements, mass transit, more parks, or more schools.
The increased traffic makes bicycling more dangerous. For example, one
major high-density development in my city destroyed a safe bicycling
route to the local middle school; they could have done it in a way that
preserved the route, but the developers rule this city, and we have a
totally ineffective bicycle and pedestrian commission.
In terms of schools, since these "St Growth" developments generate
massive numbers of new students, so we ended up with massive numbers of
portable classrooms placed onto blacktops and playing fields, no
increased school infrastructure in terms of larger auditoriums,
cafeterias, music rooms, etc. Traffic became a nighte, especially
around schools, because no plans were made for any traffic improvements,
and it became too dangerous for kids to ride their bikes to school,
which in turn led to more traffic.
Amusingly, the developers, and the politicians that they own, will
always claim that families don't buy high-density housing, so there will
be little impact on schools. Yet as soon as the developments are
complete, the big selling point in all the keting material is that
the local schools are so good. There are fifty portables on order for
our school district to accommodate the additional students, but no new
schools are planned.
Industrial land was converted to residential, which led to companies
leaving the area, and forced more people to drive to work, since many
people had moved here to be close to work, as well as for the schools.
One development, which was rental apartments, was approved because the
developer included a lot of below-ket-rate apartments. When the
rental ket declined, the developer evicted all the residents and
converted the property to condominiums. So much for "affordable housing."
The "St Growth" developments where I live, had grand plans for stores
on the bottom level, but it's been a disaster for the few businesses
that took the gamble, and most of the spaces are not leased.
Last year, there was a revolt, and we successfully fought two rezoning
proposals that would have allowed two more high-density developments.
The developers fought hard, spending millions of dollars, against our
spending of less than $20,000. The developers hired goons to disrupt our
signature gathering, filed a lawsuit to try to overturn our signature
petitions, and sent out a slew of mailers containing lies. We won in a
landslide. We also got one of the developers (one of the largest
national developers) to pay our legal costs in defending against the
bogus lawsuit.
It was a watershed event when Apple Computer spoke out against more
so-called "St Growth," and asked the city to stop rezoning scarce
commercial land for high-density housing.
Amusingly, during our local campaign, we used a lot of quotes from the
Sierra Club's website on urban sprawl, even though the Sierra Club was
against us. They quickly changed their web site, but it was too late for
them. They complained that we shouldn't use their quotes because it
implied that they supported us, but we never claimed support, we just
made them look exceedingly foolish (I was a 25 year Sierra Club member,
and I was shocked to find out how short-sighted they were in terms of
"St Growth."
Sorry for the long post. The false mantra of "St Growth" is a hot
button for me. I just hope that it doesn't turn me into a Republican.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:09:55
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
> > before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
> > did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
> > unbreakable --into the Everglades.
>
> So-called "St Growth" is heavily promoted by developers because it's
> a much more profitable use of land for them than single family homes, or
> using the land for commercial and industrial. They've conned some
> environmental groups into supporting them as well.
Planners are in bed with the developers on this one.
>
> Unfortunately, these high-density developments are rarely accompanied by
> sufficient road improvements, mass transit, more parks, or more schools.
High desity, even with improvements, still increases air pollution and
travel times as well as a big jump in overhead costs and costs of
construction.
> The increased traffic makes bicycling more dangerous. For example, one
> major high-density development in my city destroyed a safe bicycling
> route to the local middle school; they could have done it in a way that
> preserved the route, but the developers rule this city, and we have a
> totally ineffective bicycle and pedestrian commission.
>
> In terms of schools, since these "St Growth" developments generate
> massive numbers of new students,
St Growth is being used to limit children and families in many parts
of the nation. Besides, housing does NOT generate children. People do.
I've never seen a reproducing house, have you?
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 18:17:16
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:nwyQh.17977$PL.8026@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> > Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
>> > before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
>> > did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
>> > unbreakable --into the Everglades.
>>
>> So-called "St Growth" is heavily promoted by developers because it's
>> a much more profitable use of land for them than single family homes, or
>> using the land for commercial and industrial. They've conned some
>> environmental groups into supporting them as well.
>
> Planners are in bed with the developers on this one.
There are equally bad stories about ALL kinds of development. Just because
developers and politicians use the name St Growth as an excuse to line
their pockets and increase their personal power at the expense of everyone
else, that in and of itself does not mean that St growth is any better or
worse than any other system. It just means that people in a position to
take advantage WILL, no matter what the philosophy is that they give lip
service to.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 00:03:04
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:%aBQh.36060$5i7.34680@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nwyQh.17977$PL.8026@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >>
> >> > Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
> >> > before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
> >> > did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
> >> > unbreakable --into the Everglades.
> >>
> >> So-called "St Growth" is heavily promoted by developers because it's
> >> a much more profitable use of land for them than single family homes,
or
> >> using the land for commercial and industrial. They've conned some
> >> environmental groups into supporting them as well.
> >
> > Planners are in bed with the developers on this one.
>
> There are equally bad stories about ALL kinds of development. Just
because
> developers and politicians use the name St Growth as an excuse to line
> their pockets and increase their personal power at the expense of everyone
> else, that in and of itself does not mean that St growth is any better
or
> worse than any other system. It just means that people in a position to
> take advantage WILL, no matter what the philosophy is that they give lip
> service to.
Actually St Growth is basically an excuse for nothing but more density.
So, yes, it is worse than previous systems which used to think that people
could have decent housing with a yard. That is gone from St Growth.
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 15:26:26
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
>>> before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
>>> did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
>>> unbreakable --into the Everglades.
>> So-called "St Growth" is heavily promoted by developers because it's
>> a much more profitable use of land for them than single family homes, or
>> using the land for commercial and industrial. They've conned some
>> environmental groups into supporting them as well.
>
> Planners are in bed with the developers on this one.
Big time.
After our victory against the evil-doers last November, the city planner
desperately tried to find a developer to make another attempt to get
land rezoned so they could build high-density housing. The developer, to
his credit, actually asked our group what our response would be, and we
told him that we would not allow the rezoning to go unchallenged. We
have the infrastructure in place for fast signature gathering (we
collected 2x the number we needed, in less time than the law requires).
The developer sold his land, disconnected his phone lines, closed his
offices, and left town. St man to cut his losses (actually he had no
losses, he just didn't get the gains he expected).
The city council has called our group the usual names, "anti-growth,"
"vocal minority," "NIMBY's" etc., but we pay no attention to them
anymore. In fact the most important factor in beating the developers was
not to engage them or the city council in debate (they desperately tried
to get us into that position), but go straight to the voters, door to
door, with very compelling campaign pieces. The developers have no
grassroots organization, they would have to pay outsiders to walk the
precincts, including ones that speak Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, and
they don't know how to organize this.
There is nothing bad about trying to preserve your community's
character, walkability, bikeability, etc., against the developers.
> St Growth is being used to limit children and families in many parts
> of the nation. Besides, housing does NOT generate children. People do.
> I've never seen a reproducing house, have you?
You know what I mean. In my area, there are a couple of cities with very
good schools. Parents would live in a Quonset Hut to get their kids into
these schools. If the developers want to build high-density housing,
then they'll have to provide land and money for schools. It has to be
done voluntarily, as California law prevents cities from refusing to
approve housing based on school impact. Of course the city doesn't have
to say the reason they're rejecting a rezoning bid, they can just say
"we believe that the current zoning is appropriate."
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 00:00:53
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:4612d493$0$27202$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
> >>> before you run out of space? For example, here in Miami they already
> >>> did, and they already expanded the limit that was supposed to be
> >>> unbreakable --into the Everglades.
> >> So-called "St Growth" is heavily promoted by developers because it's
> >> a much more profitable use of land for them than single family homes,
or
> >> using the land for commercial and industrial. They've conned some
> >> environmental groups into supporting them as well.
> >
> > Planners are in bed with the developers on this one.
>
> Big time.
>
> After our victory against the evil-doers last November, the city planner
> desperately tried to find a developer to make another attempt to get
> land rezoned so they could build high-density housing. The developer, to
> his credit, actually asked our group what our response would be, and we
> told him that we would not allow the rezoning to go unchallenged. We
> have the infrastructure in place for fast signature gathering (we
> collected 2x the number we needed, in less time than the law requires).
> The developer sold his land, disconnected his phone lines, closed his
> offices, and left town. St man to cut his losses (actually he had no
> losses, he just didn't get the gains he expected).
Yes, our local planner also wants to encourage very high density, which
he defines as moderate density. He redefined suburban as basically 5,000
square foot lots, which used to be the city lot size. But in large areas
they are encouraging teardown with zero lot lines, row houses and
multi-story buildings. In short, whatever it was in the past, it will be
much higher density in the future. Density is the only variable he listens
to.
>
> The city council has called our group the usual names, "anti-growth,"
> "vocal minority," "NIMBY's" etc., but we pay no attention to them
> anymore. In fact the most important factor in beating the developers was
> not to engage them or the city council in debate (they desperately tried
> to get us into that position), but go straight to the voters, door to
> door, with very compelling campaign pieces. The developers have no
> grassroots organization, they would have to pay outsiders to walk the
> precincts, including ones that speak Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, and
> they don't know how to organize this.
>
> There is nothing bad about trying to preserve your community's
> character, walkability, bikeability, etc., against the developers.
>
> > St Growth is being used to limit children and families in many
parts
> > of the nation. Besides, housing does NOT generate children. People do.
> > I've never seen a reproducing house, have you?
>
> You know what I mean. In my area, there are a couple of cities with very
> good schools. Parents would live in a Quonset Hut to get their kids into
> these schools.
But that is a very temporary goal, because they redistrict almost yearly
in Raleigh. Whatever school you think you moved into, it would be different
next year anyway as the rebalance enrollments and race and income and
whatever else they want.
If the developers want to build high-density housing,
> then they'll have to provide land and money for schools. It has to be
> done voluntarily, as California law prevents cities from refusing to
> approve housing based on school impact. Of course the city doesn't have
> to say the reason they're rejecting a rezoning bid, they can just say
> "we believe that the current zoning is appropriate."
Changing zoning on a citizen is one of the worst dirty tricks a city can
pull.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 18:18:45
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:4612d493$0$27202$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
victory against the evil-doers last November, the city planner
> desperately tried to find a developer to make another attempt to get land
> rezoned so they could build high-density housing. The developer, to his
> credit, actually asked our group what our response would be, and we told
> him that we would not allow the rezoning to go unchallenged. We have the
> infrastructure in place for fast signature gathering (we collected 2x the
> number we needed, in less time than the law requires). The developer sold
> his land, disconnected his phone lines, closed his offices, and left town.
> St man to cut his losses (actually he had no losses, he just didn't get
> the gains he expected).
>
> The city council has called our group the usual names, "anti-growth,"
> "vocal minority," "NIMBY's" etc., but we pay no attention to them anymore.
> In fact the most important factor in beating the developers was not to
> engage them or the city council in debate (they desperately tried to get
> us into that position), but go straight to the voters, door to door, with
> very compelling campaign pieces. The developers have no grassroots
> organization, they would have to pay outsiders to walk the precincts,
> including ones that speak Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, and they don't
> know how to organize this.
>
> There is nothing bad about trying to preserve your community's character,
> walkability, bikeability, etc., against the developers.
I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, in my community people are
completely unable to work together for any purpose.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 00:01:53
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:ocBQh.36077$5i7.20283@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4612d493$0$27202$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > George Conklin wrote:
> >> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:46128089$0$27253$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> victory against the evil-doers last November, the city planner
> > desperately tried to find a developer to make another attempt to get
land
> > rezoned so they could build high-density housing. The developer, to his
> > credit, actually asked our group what our response would be, and we told
> > him that we would not allow the rezoning to go unchallenged. We have the
> > infrastructure in place for fast signature gathering (we collected 2x
the
> > number we needed, in less time than the law requires). The developer
sold
> > his land, disconnected his phone lines, closed his offices, and left
town.
> > St man to cut his losses (actually he had no losses, he just didn't
get
> > the gains he expected).
> >
> > The city council has called our group the usual names, "anti-growth,"
> > "vocal minority," "NIMBY's" etc., but we pay no attention to them
anymore.
> > In fact the most important factor in beating the developers was not to
> > engage them or the city council in debate (they desperately tried to get
> > us into that position), but go straight to the voters, door to door,
with
> > very compelling campaign pieces. The developers have no grassroots
> > organization, they would have to pay outsiders to walk the precincts,
> > including ones that speak Korean, Chinese, and Japanese, and they don't
> > know how to organize this.
> >
> > There is nothing bad about trying to preserve your community's
character,
> > walkability, bikeability, etc., against the developers.
>
> I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, in my community people are
> completely unable to work together for any purpose.
>
>
We did that for years...and even have obtained agreements from such groups
as GE...the engine plant is near us.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 00:15:21
From:
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
aspects of this predicament.
Jobst Brandt
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 23:09:19
From: Pat
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 6, 11:14 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
> "Bill" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:xOyRh.1596$zC.1358@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> >> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
>
> >> For example:
>
> >> (this is serious)
>
> >> 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
> >> in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
> >> also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
> >> nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
> >> we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
> >> rights, and humanitarian relief.'
>
> > No shit. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
> > Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
> > We have no REAL partnerships because they will shit on us and change sides
> > as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is way
> > overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put you out
> > of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our money.
> > Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
> > Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
> > Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
> > appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
> > home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.
>
> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media attention.
> Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely wiped
> off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of some
> sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
> the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get back
> to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New Orleans
> chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
> failed them so badly in power.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I found the most fascinating about New Orleans was the fact that
Houston accepted so many people, so quickly, and had emergency plans
in place to handle a hurricane. Then I found out that the all of
those plans and "stuff" were in place to handle the evacuation of
Galveston and was done by, and paid for, by Galveston. I kept
thinking how wonderful it was that Galveston would "share", but I also
kept thinking "man, I hope Galveston doesn't get hit by a hurricane
and need the stuff".
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 15:05:21
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote:
>At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
>the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>aspects of this predicament.
Your choices are growth and death. You can have both, but not
neither.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:24:33
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:F-GdndMIaOOcmInbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> >At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> >could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> >the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> >aspects of this predicament.
>
> Your choices are growth and death. You can have both, but not
> neither.
>
Global
The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. What
else is new?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 21:05:54
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:F-GdndMIaOOcmInbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
>>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>>> aspects of this predicament.
>> Your choices are growth and death. You can have both, but not
>> neither.
>>
> Global
>
> The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. What
> else is new?
>
>
Do you live where you can stick you head in the sand and play Ostrich?
If the world had warmed out of the ice age this fast it would be over
200 degrees now.
Pay attention.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 23:57:38
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:SqUQh.5716$Kd3.4570@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> > news:F-GdndMIaOOcmInbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> In article <46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> >>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> >>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> >>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> >>> aspects of this predicament.
> >> Your choices are growth and death. You can have both, but not
> >> neither.
> >>
> > Global
> >
> > The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
What
> > else is new?
> >
> >
> Do you live where you can stick you head in the sand and play Ostrich?
> If the world had warmed out of the ice age this fast it would be over
> 200 degrees now.
> Pay attention.
> Bill Baka
Untrue. You know it too. The oceans use to be more than 100 feet higher
than now. Maybe 200 feet. And 400 lower than today too. It has all
happened in the past. Was Chicago better off under 200 feet of ice, just
yesterday in geological age? The early settlements of NC are now 200 feet
under water.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 05:42:49
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:SqUQh.5716$Kd3.4570@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:F-GdndMIaOOcmInbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> In article <46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>>>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>>>>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>>>>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
>>>>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>>>>> aspects of this predicament.
>>>> Your choices are growth and death. You can have both, but not
>>>> neither.
>>>>
>>> Global
>>>
>>> The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
> What
>>> else is new?
>>>
>>>
>> Do you live where you can stick you head in the sand and play Ostrich?
>> If the world had warmed out of the ice age this fast it would be over
>> 200 degrees now.
>> Pay attention.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Untrue. You know it too. The oceans use to be more than 100 feet higher
> than now. Maybe 200 feet. And 400 lower than today too. It has all
> happened in the past. Was Chicago better off under 200 feet of ice, just
> yesterday in geological age? The early settlements of NC are now 200 feet
> under water.
>
>
>
I might call that "Plate Tectonics" and not blame the ocean height for
everything. There was even an 8+ earthquake in 1811 that changed the
course of the 'Mighty' Mississippi river, and the story was passed on by
the 'Indians' who lived there at the time.
Nothing should be overlooked.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 10:53:06
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:t%%Qh.5183$u03.4084@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:SqUQh.5716$Kd3.4570@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:F-GdndMIaOOcmInbnZ2dnUVZ_tSunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>>> In article <46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> >>>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> >>>>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> >>>>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth
is
> >>>>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> >>>>> aspects of this predicament.
> >>>> Your choices are growth and death. You can have both, but not
> >>>> neither.
> >>>>
> >>> Global
> >>>
> >>> The world has been warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago.
> > What
> >>> else is new?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Do you live where you can stick you head in the sand and play Ostrich?
> >> If the world had warmed out of the ice age this fast it would be over
> >> 200 degrees now.
> >> Pay attention.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > Untrue. You know it too. The oceans use to be more than 100 feet
higher
> > than now. Maybe 200 feet. And 400 lower than today too. It has all
> > happened in the past. Was Chicago better off under 200 feet of ice,
just
> > yesterday in geological age? The early settlements of NC are now 200
feet
> > under water.
> >
> >
> >
> I might call that "Plate Tectonics" and not blame the ocean height for
> everything. There was even an 8+ earthquake in 1811 that changed the
> course of the 'Mighty' Mississippi river, and the story was passed on by
> the 'Indians' who lived there at the time.
> Nothing should be overlooked.
> Bill Baka
Yes, that was well known too, but the rise of mean sea level over the past
10,000 years was more dramatic. It still has some way to go....based on
known cycle in the past anyway. If human activity changes the cycle, it is
merely an added force on top of what was happening anyway.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 10:38:31
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org > wrote in message
news:46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> aspects of this predicament.
>
> Jobst Brandt
another secular eschatologist emerges
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 07:25:42
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:H8qQh.133915$_73.56908@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
> news:46119c99$0$14065$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
>> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
>> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
>> aspects of this predicament.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> another secular eschatologist emerges
huh-huh. You said "eschatologist."
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 02:19:49
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> At this time in human history there is no "St growth". "St"
> could apply to a world awareness of how the Ponzi scheme of growth is
> the doom of civilization. Global warming and oil wars are visible
> aspects of this predicament.
>
> Jobst Brandt
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. We can't continue to grow
exponentially like some politicians think. I get tired of them talking
up growth like it's a good thing. My guess is that within ten years
somebody will lob a nuke and start something major, and it may be Iran
or North Korea, but some dumb dictator is going to have a nuclear toy
one of these days. We, the US, can't run the whole world.
Don't tell Bush.
It would ruin his ego trip.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 15:45:35
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 7, 3:05 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com > wrote:
> > I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
> > of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> > the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
> attention.
> > Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely
> wiped
> > off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of
> some
> > sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
> > the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get
> back
> > to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New
> Orleans
> > chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
> > failed them so badly in power.
>
> Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion on
> our own nation?-
Perhaps they are trying St Growth in Iraq. The forturnes of a few
are surely growing.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 17:42:34
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:10:20 -0700, donquijote1954 wrote:
> STEMMING SPRAWL
> Sanford talks of planning growth
> S.C. population expected to surge by 1.3 million in 2 decades
>
> CHARLESTON --South Carolina's population will swell by 1.3 million in
> two decades, and making st decisions about growth will help it be
> more nationally competitive for business, jobs and retirees, Gov. k
> Sanford told a conference this week.
>
> Not many Republican governors have made growth planning a priority. But
> the conference in Charleston's historic Dock Street Theatre fulfills a
> pledge Sanford made in his State of the State address two months ago.
>
> Surprisingly to some, the libertarian-leaning governor did not rule out
> promoting statewide "st growth" initiatives that aim to stem suburban
> sprawl and improve air and water quality.
>
> http://charlotte.com/122/story/65705.html
Unfortunately Gov. Sanford (an avid cyclist) seems to be a lone voice in
this process. South Carolina is a mess, a perfect example of how not to
build. There's little planning, few rules, the rules that exist are
ignored, and the taxpayer is left to deal with the mess, after the fact.
Charleston is the place most people have heard of in SC, and it's the
largest population center. But the real problem is explosive, no-rules
growth in the Myrtle Beach area. Already the traffic there is worse than
almost anywhere. It's also the most bike-hostile environment I've
encountered in the US. This is a shame because bikes would be a great
solution for a lot of locals, who are forced to own cars they can't
afford. Yet SC continues to build arterial roads without bike lanes,
bikeable lanes, or even shoulders.
What really gets me are the housing tracts advertised as "planned
communities," which are the antithesis of planning -- disconnected pods
branching off arterial roads, leading to highway commercial strips.
Carolina Forest is a perfect example.
To southern Californians -- never complain about the Irvine Company, etc.
It could be so much worse.
Matt O.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 19:46:34
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175541020.730095.320060@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 29, 5:35 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > population difficult to serve by buses.
> >
> > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
>
> Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
> before you run out of space?
Well, with people leaving farms and abandoning the land, the rest is going
to be more concentrated. But not much more. Single-family housing still
has a lot of life left in it, except for planners, who hate familes,
children, education and cul-de-sacs. St Growth is used to make sure
people with children do NOT move in.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 14:59:19
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <u4dQh.17578$PL.8415@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>children, education and cul-de-sacs. St Growth is used to make sure
>people with children do NOT move in.
Unfortunately, that's its ONLY up side.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:09:10
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:8IadnfgPNPsKnonbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <u4dQh.17578$PL.8415@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >children, education and cul-de-sacs. St Growth is used to make sure
> >people with children do NOT move in.
>
> Unfortunately, that's its ONLY up side.
You educated yourself without schools?
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 23:52:49
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:46:34 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1175541020.730095.320060@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 29, 5:35 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
>> > > population difficult to serve by buses.
>> >
>> > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>>
>>
>> Could it be because it doesn't make sense? How much space can take up
>> before you run out of space?
>
> Well, with people leaving farms and abandoning the land, the rest is going
>to be more concentrated. But not much more. Single-family housing still
>has a lot of life left in it, except for planners, who hate familes,
>children, education and cul-de-sacs. St Growth is used to make sure
>people with children do NOT move in.
>
Based on the 5 story condos in Halifax, Nova Scotia that are springing
up like weeds and the single story apartments that are being built in
rural towns like Bridgetown and Middleton, Nova Scotia, multi-unit
buildings also have some life.
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 12:17:09
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
On 28, 1:05 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> nash wrote:
> > There is no oil shortage anywhere
> > <<<<<<<<<
>
> > It is more difficult now to dig out. No new either lately. That is why it
> > costs more and is more precious. Uranium fueled cars are next. Only you do
> > not know that.
> > Canada has the biggest oil sands in the world. Enough for 100 years. What
> > good is that if you do not have the money and research to pump it out.
> > There is also less oil in old areas than you think. One of the biggest
> > in Egypt or somewhere will be gone in a few years. Nobody seems to know or
> > broadcast it which I find ridiculous since they seem to want to be lied to.
>
> People in general have an inherent flaw. They want to be told by the
> government that it is all OK, even when it is so obviously not. The $300
> billion or more that the United States has blown in Iraq would have
> bought a lot of alternative energy, both research and actual, as in
> windmills, solar, etc.
> Bush is having too much fun pretending he knows anything at all about
> international politics and the military.
> Things will change in January of 2009 when we have a new (better) president.
> Bill Baka
Yeah, but the damage is done, and it'll perhaps be too little too
late.
You must wait for Armageddon or World Revolution to change things. One
question that crossed my mind yesterday: IF THERE'S A GOD, WHY SHOULD
I WORRY ABOUT WWIII OR GLOBAL WARMING? Some beliefs are just plain
dangerous.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 23:48:02
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 28, 1:05 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> nash wrote:
>>> There is no oil shortage anywhere
>>> <<<<<<<<<
>>> It is more difficult now to dig out. No new either lately. That is why it
>>> costs more and is more precious. Uranium fueled cars are next. Only you do
>>> not know that.
>>> Canada has the biggest oil sands in the world. Enough for 100 years. What
>>> good is that if you do not have the money and research to pump it out.
>>> There is also less oil in old areas than you think. One of the biggest
>>> in Egypt or somewhere will be gone in a few years. Nobody seems to know or
>>> broadcast it which I find ridiculous since they seem to want to be lied to.
>> People in general have an inherent flaw. They want to be told by the
>> government that it is all OK, even when it is so obviously not. The $300
>> billion or more that the United States has blown in Iraq would have
>> bought a lot of alternative energy, both research and actual, as in
>> windmills, solar, etc.
>> Bush is having too much fun pretending he knows anything at all about
>> international politics and the military.
>> Things will change in January of 2009 when we have a new (better) president.
>> Bill Baka
>
> Yeah, but the damage is done, and it'll perhaps be too little too
> late.
Maybe some of it can be reversed but I doubt that even a Democratic
president will be ripping cameras out of public areas where they are
already installed.
>
> You must wait for Armageddon or World Revolution to change things.
Funny that you should see what's coming, I just don't know when.
One
> question that crossed my mind yesterday: IF THERE'S A GOD, WHY SHOULD
> I WORRY ABOUT WWIII OR GLOBAL WARMING?
Sure, God will just make a miracle or you just know you are going to
heaven so why worry about your children or grandchildren or any body
else's kids inheriting the mess.
Some beliefs are just plain
> dangerous.
>
Amen!
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 11:47:28
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: the transportation zoo
|
On 29, 3:02 pm, Wayne Pein <w...@nc.rr.com > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > Let me recycle this post...
>
> > --The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
> > options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
> > dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
> > not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
> > of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--
>
> > Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
> > affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
> > the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
> > a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
> > them deserve no respect, neither good service.
>
> > In other words,
>
> > LIONS=SUVs
> > MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.
>
> Here's my interpretation:
>
Your zoo seems to have a few problems...
> MONKEYS = poor saps who can only ride a bike if they have dedicated bike
> reservations.
Monkeys nowday ride sidewalks, if you ever cared to go into the
jungle, ie the ghetto where they don't even know they have the right
to ride the road. Or perhaps it's just common sense that, contrary to
all talk about bicycles being vehicles, they sense that the law of the
road and the law of the jungle are the same, and that they are at the
bottom of the food chain.
>
> LIONS = empowered bicycle drivers who are competent enough to consider
> normal roads "bicycle facliities."
Lions who ride bicycles do so in their neat bikepath, bikelanes, or
simply where there's some order and respect on the roads. Trust me,
it's very different from the jungle.
>
> WATER BUFFALO = motorists.
I thought they were the sheep willing to be preyed upon by Big Oil,
Big Insurance, and other big predators out there.
>
> SHEEP = short haul public transit users.
Oh those are the Black Sheep. They are frowned upon, and usually
rejected by the common sheep. They insist on being different, and not
feeding the predators.
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 11:35:19
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: living in the last frontier
|
On 30, 5:39 pm, .p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote:
> On 30 2007 13:15:37 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>
> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >--If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
> >consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
> >of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
> >improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
> >- The price of gas isn't one of them.--
>
> Here's one alternative mode of transportaion
>
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-23390848-details/Air+mi...
>
> aka
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yoo766
Then you must listen to me, because I ain't got no private jets, and
just yesterday someone gave away a two-stroke scooter to my girlfriend
and I told her to give it back, 'cause it's too polluting.
>
>
>
> >What a coincidence, INCREASING THE PRICE OF GAS is one of them, and
> >REDUCING SPRAWL is another. But I'm not out to convince anyone who's
> >pretty much got stuck in his/her ways. It has to be mandated by new
> >stricter policies against sprawl, induced by INCREASING TAXATION OF
> >GAS TO SUBSIDIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, and facilitated by
>
> Yeh, that's what we need - more taxes. When the government
> makes a suburban lifestyle simply unaffordable for the common folk ,
> THEN those little bastards will HAVE to move into cities, huddle in
> little apartments, give up their guns and depend on the police for
> their safety, give up their private vehicles and ride the bus, etc.
>
> Take their transportation and mobility away by making it too
> expensive ! And just think of all those lovely new tax dollars we'll
> have to spend on social programs !!!!!
>
> THAT'S the ticket !!!!!
>
> >EDUCATION as to what the consequences are of behaving in a selfish
> >manner. When we are able to point the finger at someone who arrogantly
> >drives an oversized SUV or overwhelming motorboat, we'll be on the
> >right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
>
> The verdict will be : YOU'RE A NUTTER !!!!!
Sure, you want the sprawl and SUVs to dominate American landscape,
just like the buffalo once was. No wonder the Indians resisted your
"civilization" so much. Hey, here's somebody else who wants to live in
the last frontier...
--We might as well drop this as there is no way your going to convince
me to move back into the city.--
Nor am I trying too. It's nothing square like city=good and
countryside=bad, just that the sprawl, the running away from a
decaying city, instead of fixing it, is a bad policy.
There are new ster policies however that can be pursued, without
detriment to personal freedom, for example...
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is the exciting new fast growing trend
in creating vibrant, livable communities. Also known as Transit
Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walkable
communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it
possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on
a car for mobility and survival.
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is a major solution to the serious and
growing problems of peak oil and global warming by creating dense,
walkable communities connected to a train line that greatly reduce the
need for driving and the burning of fossil fuels.
COMPONENTS OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN
-Walkable design with pedestrian as the highest priority
-Train station as prominent feature of town center
-A regional node containing a mixture of uses in close proximity
including office, residential, retail, and civic uses
-High density, high-quality development within 10-minute walk circle
surrounding train station
-Collector support transit systems including trolleys, streetcars,
light rail, and buses, etc
-Designed to include the easy use of bicycles, scooters, and
rollerblades as daily support transportation systems
-Reduced and managed parking inside 10-minute walk circle around town
center / train station
BENEFITS
-Higher quality of life
-Better places to live, work, and play
-Greater mobility with ease of moving around
-Increased transit ridership
-Reduced traffic congestion and driving
-Reduced car accidents and injuries
-Reduced household spending on transportation, resulting in more
affordable housing
-Healthier lifestyle with more walking, and less stress
-Higher, more stable property values
-Increased foot traffic and customers for area businesses
-Greatly reduced dependence on foreign oil
-Greatly reduced pollution and environmental destruction
-Reduced incentive to sprawl, increased incentive for compact
development
-Less expensive than building roads and sprawl
-Enhanced ability to maintain economic competitiveness
http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 19:48:46
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: living in the last frontier
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message \\\>
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is the exciting new fast growing trend
> in creating vibrant, livable communities.
I grew up like that. It sucks. It is known as New York City.
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 17:33:23
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 30, 6:55 pm, "drydem" <walter_...@my-deja.com > wrote:
> On 30, 12:43 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:ivqq035a9pgao0qd6045lei9ji5nfoi2s4@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
> > > (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
> > > >In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > >George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > >>> population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> > > >> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
> > > >Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> > > Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
> > > give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
> > > laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
> > > family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
> > > influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
> > > condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the character
> > > of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
> > > residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
> > > given suburb can't afford to live there.
>
> > The more dense housing gets, the MORE it costs.-
>
> When the type of construction method
> (sticks n bricks) stays the same the cost of
> housing cost per capita (inital cost and
> also maintaince cost) cost DROPS as the housing
> density per capita increases when the housing type
> changes from a single family structure to a
> townhouse to a duplex to a condo/apartment.
> However, this economic model is limited to
> housing structure shorter than 5 floors.
> When a building start to have 5 stories/floors or
> higher, local building codes requires a stronger and
> more expensive construction method (steel beam
> reinforcements, a larger foundations) which
> increases the construction cost and
> maintance cost.
>
> With respect to urban planning the biggest automotive
> headache is often parking. Because the return
> on investment for structured parking is so low
> (compared to an office building or retail space), most
> developers don't want build(pay) for the parking
> facilities that their buildings may require. Sometimes
> municipalities will pay for the cost of structure parking
> as a part of an urban revitalization projects.
Yes, but it's not quite that simple. At a low density, you have wells
and septics for a single family home, plus heat might be oil or
bottled gas. At a slightly higher density, you have muni utilities
and probably natural gas. The costs at those levels may be similar
but they are different because the capital cost of a muni system is
viewed as more of an occupancy cost.
At some point, you also start to trade-off labor. You start getting a
super, start getting lawn mowing, etc. etc.
Then as you go denser, you go smaller. For example a 2500 s.f. house
v a 1000 s.f. apt./condo. Plus, you really cannot compare the same
type of construction for multi-family and single family because they
are quite different. There isn't really a "same" there.
Once you go beyond like a duplex then you are adding new costs, such
as sprinklers.
Once you go beyond 4 unit (or is it 5), then you get into ADA
requirements.
Above 2 stories you usually have an elevator in new construction.
Then above 4 you change type of construction. You may also change
financing and the require DBRA if you are using anything like HUD
mortgage insurance.
After that, the economics sort of settle down, with the realization
that as you go up, your proporation of rentalable space declines with
height.
So in the end, at the single-family homes appear cheaper when you move
to a muni system. But the actual cost is probably about the same.
The it gets cheaper per unit as you increase density but the cost per
s.f. goes up some because you are adding more kitchens and baths per
s.f.
Then 3 to 5 stories are about the same.
Then over 5 it gets real expensive and then more expensive with
height, not density.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 11:27:14
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175301203.536596.191270@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 30, 6:55 pm, "drydem" <walter_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On 30, 12:43 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
messagenews:ivqq035a9pgao0qd6045lei9ji5nfoi2s4@4ax.com...
> >
> > > > On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
> > > > (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >
> > > > >In article
<HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
> > > > >George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > >>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > > >>> population difficult to serve by buses.
> >
> > > > >> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
> >
> > > > >Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> > > > Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
> > > > give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
> > > > laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
> > > > family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
> > > > influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
> > > > condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the
character
> > > > of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
> > > > residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
> > > > given suburb can't afford to live there.
> >
> > > The more dense housing gets, the MORE it costs.-
> >
> > When the type of construction method
> > (sticks n bricks) stays the same the cost of
> > housing cost per capita (inital cost and
> > also maintaince cost) cost DROPS as the housing
> > density per capita increases when the housing type
> > changes from a single family structure to a
> > townhouse to a duplex to a condo/apartment.
> > However, this economic model is limited to
> > housing structure shorter than 5 floors.
> > When a building start to have 5 stories/floors or
> > higher, local building codes requires a stronger and
> > more expensive construction method (steel beam
> > reinforcements, a larger foundations) which
> > increases the construction cost and
> > maintance cost.
> >
> > With respect to urban planning the biggest automotive
> > headache is often parking. Because the return
> > on investment for structured parking is so low
> > (compared to an office building or retail space), most
> > developers don't want build(pay) for the parking
> > facilities that their buildings may require. Sometimes
> > municipalities will pay for the cost of structure parking
> > as a part of an urban revitalization projects.
>
> Yes, but it's not quite that simple. At a low density, you have wells
> and septics for a single family home, plus heat might be oil or
> bottled gas. At a slightly higher density, you have muni utilities
> and probably natural gas. The costs at those levels may be similar
> but they are different because the capital cost of a muni system is
> viewed as more of an occupancy cost.
>
> At some point, you also start to trade-off labor. You start getting a
> super, start getting lawn mowing, etc. etc.
>
> Then as you go denser, you go smaller. For example a 2500 s.f. house
> v a 1000 s.f. apt./condo. Plus, you really cannot compare the same
> type of construction for multi-family and single family because they
> are quite different. There isn't really a "same" there.
>
> Once you go beyond like a duplex then you are adding new costs, such
> as sprinklers.
>
> Once you go beyond 4 unit (or is it 5), then you get into ADA
> requirements.
>
> Above 2 stories you usually have an elevator in new construction.
>
> Then above 4 you change type of construction. You may also change
> financing and the require DBRA if you are using anything like HUD
> mortgage insurance.
>
> After that, the economics sort of settle down, with the realization
> that as you go up, your proporation of rentalable space declines with
> height.
>
> So in the end, at the single-family homes appear cheaper when you move
> to a muni system. But the actual cost is probably about the same.
>
> The it gets cheaper per unit as you increase density but the cost per
> s.f. goes up some because you are adding more kitchens and baths per
> s.f.
>
> Then 3 to 5 stories are about the same.
>
> Then over 5 it gets real expensive and then more expensive with
> height, not density.
>
All correct. And do you really want to live over a restaurant spewing
forth filthy smoke all night along with the smelly garbage put out at night
and picked up at 5AM with a truck which wakes everyone within 500 feet?
As for costs, check out the sumy of how this works in practice and go
look at the original in your local university library.
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/review1.htm
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 16:55:36
From: drydem
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 30, 12:43 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:ivqq035a9pgao0qd6045lei9ji5nfoi2s4@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
> > (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
> > >In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > >George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > >>> population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> > >> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
> > >Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> > Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
> > give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
> > laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
> > family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
> > influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
> > condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the character
> > of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
> > residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
> > given suburb can't afford to live there.
>
> The more dense housing gets, the MORE it costs.-
>
When the type of construction method
(sticks n bricks) stays the same the cost of
housing cost per capita (inital cost and
also maintaince cost) cost DROPS as the housing
density per capita increases when the housing type
changes from a single family structure to a
townhouse to a duplex to a condo/apartment.
However, this economic model is limited to
housing structure shorter than 5 floors.
When a building start to have 5 stories/floors or
higher, local building codes requires a stronger and
more expensive construction method (steel beam
reinforcements, a larger foundations) which
increases the construction cost and
maintance cost.
With respect to urban planning the biggest automotive
headache is often parking. Because the return
on investment for structured parking is so low
(compared to an office building or retail space), most
developers don't want build(pay) for the parking
facilities that their buildings may require. Sometimes
municipalities will pay for the cost of structure parking
as a part of an urban revitalization projects.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 11:23:52
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"drydem" <walter_lee@my-deja.com > wrote in message
news:1175298936.424948.119890@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 30, 12:43 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
messagenews:ivqq035a9pgao0qd6045lei9ji5nfoi2s4@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
> > > (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >
> > > >In article
<HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
> > > >George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > >>> population difficult to serve by buses.
> >
> > > >> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
> >
> > > >Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> > > Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
> > > give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
> > > laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
> > > family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
> > > influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
> > > condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the character
> > > of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
> > > residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
> > > given suburb can't afford to live there.
> >
> > The more dense housing gets, the MORE it costs.-
> >
>
>
> When the type of construction method
> (sticks n bricks) stays the same the cost of
> housing cost per capita (inital cost and
> also maintaince cost) cost DROPS as the housing
> density per capita increases when the housing type
> changes from a single family structure to a
> townhouse to a duplex to a condo/apartment.
Except that is not true. Higher taxes are needed to pay for more
expensive services, including high costs of running utilities, much higher
police costs and higher governmental costs in general. Helen Ladd proved
that years ago. Further, if apartments cost less, it is because they are
much, much smaller. You can, using St Growth, turn a 2,400 square foot
house into 3 apartments, each costing about half of the cost of the
undivided house. That represents much higher profit for the builder, NOT
lower costs.
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 13:13:13
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
--If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
- The price of gas isn't one of them.--
What a coincidence, INCREASING THE PRICE OF GAS is one of them, and
REDUCING SPRAWL is another. But I'm not out to convince anyone who's
pretty much got stuck in his/her ways. It has to be mandated by new
stricter policies against sprawl, induced by INCREASING TAXATION OF
GAS TO SUBSIDIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, and facilitated by
EDUCATION as to what the consequences are of behaving in a selfish
manner. When we are able to point the finger at someone who arrogantly
drives an oversized SUV or overwhelming motorboat, we'll be on the
right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 05:10:27
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> --If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
> consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
> of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
> improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
> - The price of gas isn't one of them.--
>
>
> What a coincidence, INCREASING THE PRICE OF GAS is one of them, and
> REDUCING SPRAWL is another. But I'm not out to convince anyone who's
> pretty much got stuck in his/her ways. It has to be mandated by new
> stricter policies against sprawl, induced by INCREASING TAXATION OF
> GAS TO SUBSIDIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, and facilitated by
> EDUCATION as to what the consequences are of behaving in a selfish
> manner. When we are able to point the finger at someone who arrogantly
> drives an oversized SUV or overwhelming motorboat, we'll be on the
> right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
>
I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
so that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that
doing 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a
3 month license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they
could commit the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 14:58:32
From: nash
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote in
message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> --If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
>> consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
>> of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
>> improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
>> - The price of gas isn't one of them.--
>>
>>
>> What a coincidence, INCREASING THE PRICE OF GAS is one of them, and
>> REDUCING SPRAWL is another. But I'm not out to convince anyone who's
>> pretty much got stuck in his/her ways. It has to be mandated by new
>> stricter policies against sprawl, induced by INCREASING TAXATION OF
>> GAS TO SUBSIDIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, and facilitated by
>> EDUCATION as to what the consequences are of behaving in a selfish
>> manner. When we are able to point the finger at someone who arrogantly
>> drives an oversized SUV or overwhelming motorboat, we'll be on the
>> right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
>>
>
> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws so
> that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3 month
> license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could commit
> the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
Like it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 19:50:10
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:sGuPh.4395$DE1.4026@pd7urf2no...
>
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> --If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
> >> consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
> >> of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
> >> improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
> >> - The price of gas isn't one of them.--
> >>
> >>
> >> What a coincidence, INCREASING THE PRICE OF GAS is one of them, and
> >> REDUCING SPRAWL is another. But I'm not out to convince anyone who's
> >> pretty much got stuck in his/her ways. It has to be mandated by new
> >> stricter policies against sprawl, induced by INCREASING TAXATION OF
> >> GAS TO SUBSIDIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, and facilitated by
> >> EDUCATION as to what the consequences are of behaving in a selfish
> >> manner. When we are able to point the finger at someone who arrogantly
> >> drives an oversized SUV or overwhelming motorboat, we'll be on the
> >> right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
> >>
> >
> > I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
so
> > that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> > vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> > others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
> > 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3
month
> > license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could
commit
> > the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>
> Like it.
>
>
Are you going to execute tractor trailer drivers? Or just starve?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 06:23:11
From: di
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote in
message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>
> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws so
> that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3 month
> license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could commit
> the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot down,
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 10:50:40
From: _
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 20:38:03 -0500, di wrote:
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:R_YPh.32460$68.20639@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
>>>
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
>>>> so that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
>>>> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
>>>> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
>>>> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3
>>>> month license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could
>>>> commit the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>>>
>>> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot
>>> down,
>>
>> Discrimination is when someone holds what you are against you, not
>> something you do by choice. For instance, different laws apply to 18
>> wheelers vs. compact cars. This is not discrimination, but a simple
>> recognition that both classes of vehicle have different physical
>> characteristics.
>
> Just try it with a law like this proposal, different penalities for the same
> offense, just based on the vehicle you drive.
>>
>>
They would not be the same offense - they would be different offenses,
depending on the vehicle you drive.
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Apr 2007 20:28:30
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
>
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>
>> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws so
>> that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
>> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
>> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
>> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3 month
>> license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could commit
>> the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>
> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot down,
Discrimination is when someone holds what you are against you, not something
you do by choice. For instance, different laws apply to 18 wheelers vs.
compact cars. This is not discrimination, but a simple recognition that
both classes of vehicle have different physical characteristics.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 11:45:55
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:R_YPh.32460$68.20639@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
> >
> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>
> >>
> >> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
so
> >> that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> >> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> >> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that
doing
> >> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3
month
> >> license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could
commit
> >> the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
> >
> > I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot
down,
>
> Discrimination is when someone holds what you are against you, not
something
> you do by choice. For instance, different laws apply to 18 wheelers vs.
> compact cars. This is not discrimination, but a simple recognition that
> both classes of vehicle have different physical characteristics.
>
>
You don't remember current history. No-fault insurance was proposed many
times based on the weight of the vehicle. Trucks would have paid much more
in insurance since they cause about 9 times more deaths if they hit a car.
The truckers got all that shot down because they, NOT SUVs are the main
problem on the highways.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Apr 2007 20:38:03
From: di
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:R_YPh.32460$68.20639@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
>>
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
>>> so that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
>>> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
>>> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
>>> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3
>>> month license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could
>>> commit the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>>
>> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot
>> down,
>
> Discrimination is when someone holds what you are against you, not
> something you do by choice. For instance, different laws apply to 18
> wheelers vs. compact cars. This is not discrimination, but a simple
> recognition that both classes of vehicle have different physical
> characteristics.
Just try it with a law like this proposal, different penalities for the same
offense, just based on the vehicle you drive.
>
>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 03:45:47
From: nash
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:X7ZPh.16615$Ng1.5135@newsfe19.lga...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:R_YPh.32460$68.20639@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
>>>
>>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
>>>> so that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
>>>> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
>>>> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that
>>>> doing 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a
>>>> 3 month license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they
>>>> could commit the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>>>
>>> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot
>>> down,
>>
>> Discrimination is when someone holds what you are against you, not
>> something you do by choice. For instance, different laws apply to 18
>> wheelers vs. compact cars. This is not discrimination, but a simple
>> recognition that both classes of vehicle have different physical
>> characteristics.
>
> Just try it with a law like this proposal, different penalities for the
> same offense, just based on the vehicle you drive.
>>
>>
It is based on the pollution you make. Your choice. let's not get wishy
washy.
Look it as the kind of law that keeps semis out of residential streets. Is
that discrimination because any one should be allowed to drive anywhere
because they have a license.
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 06:59:47
From: di
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:L%_Ph.16302$aG1.8789@pd7urf3no...
>
>>>
>>>
> It is based on the pollution you make. Your choice. let's not get wishy
> washy.
> Look it as the kind of law that keeps semis out of residential streets.
> Is that discrimination because any one should be allowed to drive anywhere
> because they have a license.
>
Keeping trucks out of residential streets is entirely a different subject
than variable fine amounts for speeding. You were given a brain for a
reason, try to use it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 15:10:56
From: nash
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
>
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>
>> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws so
>> that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
>> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
>> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
>> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3 month
>> license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could commit
>> the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>
> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot down,
And not doing it we are committing murder. Tisk tisk. We are on a short
plank to hell. I never owned a vehicle. Except for 2 years in the 80's I
had a 200cc motorcycle. Hardly counts. Always had a bicycle though or used
transit.
So hang em out to dry. BC gives $100,000, yeah 6 zeros, fines to anyone
butchering parkland with their 4X4s and SUVs.
BC is just now outlawing smoking infront doorways to the outside of company
buildings where they always rudely hang out. Cannot count how many times a
smoker will see me locking/unlocking my bike and come right up to me and
light up. Do I have an "I want to die from second hand smoke T-shirt" on.
Are you really going to take that long before you will do anything about
this problem. How many millions more have to die.
When are you going to take responsibility. This started way before you were
born but that is no excuse. Neither is anything else.
CTV News has finished its climate change week. Far too soon if you ask me.
See their website for more info I guess.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 22:25:11
From: _
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
On Sat, 31 2007 15:10:56 GMT, nash wrote:
> So hang em out to dry. BC gives $100,000, yeah 6 zeros, fines to anyone
> butchering parkland with their 4X4s and SUVs.
Let me guess.
Bill Sornsen has been tutoring you in arithmetic.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 23:38:12
From: nash
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"_" <jtaylor@NOSPAMeastlink.ca > wrote in message
news:xorap7uyz06l$.k6cs8yjdsz1w$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 31 2007 15:10:56 GMT, nash wrote:
>
>> So hang em out to dry. BC gives $100,000, yeah 6 zeros, fines to anyone
>> butchering parkland with their 4X4s and SUVs.
>
> Let me guess.
>
> Bill Sornsen has been tutoring you in arithmetic
Well. I don't care if it is 1000, 100, or 10M. You want jokes I can give
you jokes.
that was a typo.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 15:48:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"_" (an apt description of his intellectual worth and honesty) wrote:
> On Sat, 31 2007 15:10:56 GMT, nash wrote:
>
>> So hang em out to dry. BC gives $100,000, yeah 6 zeros, fines to
>> anyone butchering parkland with their 4X4s and SUVs.
>
> Let me guess.
>
> Bill Sornsen has been tutoring you in arithmetic.
Learn to spell, Flailor. LOL
Bill "changing user names to get past filters...AGAIN?!?" S.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 23:41:45
From: nash
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:460ee52f$0$17182$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "_" (an apt description of his intellectual worth and honesty) wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 2007 15:10:56 GMT, nash wrote:
>>
>>> So hang em out to dry. BC gives $100,000, yeah 6 zeros, fines to
>>> anyone butchering parkland with their 4X4s and SUVs.
>>
>> Let me guess.
>>
>> Bill Sornsen has been tutoring you in arithmetic.
>
> Learn to spell, Flailor. LOL
>
> Bill "changing user names to get past filters...AGAIN?!?" S.
"What's your name again Bill"
I win by default the other guy never showed up -
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 23:39:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:460ee52f$0$17182$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "_" (an apt description of his intellectual worth and honesty) wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 2007 15:10:56 GMT, nash wrote:
>>
>>> So hang em out to dry. BC gives $100,000, yeah 6 zeros, fines to
>>> anyone butchering parkland with their 4X4s and SUVs.
>>
>> Let me guess.
>>
>> Bill Sornsen has been tutoring you in arithmetic.
>
> Learn to spell, Flailor. LOL
>
> Bill "changing user names to get past filters...AGAIN?!?" S.
score is one all
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 19:49:32
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:4SuPh.4640$aG1.2373@pd7urf3no...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
> >
> > "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>
> >>
> >> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
so
> >> that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> >> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> >> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that
doing
> >> 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3
month
> >> license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could
commit
> >> the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
> >
> > I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot
down,
> And not doing it we are committing murder. Tisk tisk. We are on a short
> plank to hell. I never owned a vehicle
So you rely on others to pay your transit subsidy. Is this moral?
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 12:08:29
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:xwrPh.268815$Ju2.189064@newsfe16.lga...
>
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >
> > I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
so
> > that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> > vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> > others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that doing
> > 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a 3
month
> > license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they could
commit
> > the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
>
> I would think this would called "discrimination" and quickly be shot down,
>
>
And a trucker with an 80,000 pound truck would be what? Tortured and then
executed after 1 month?
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 11:21:33
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote in
message news:73mPh.19672$Jl.14850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > --If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
> > consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
> > of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
> > improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
> > - The price of gas isn't one of them.--
> >
> >
> > What a coincidence, INCREASING THE PRICE OF GAS is one of them, and
> > REDUCING SPRAWL is another. But I'm not out to convince anyone who's
> > pretty much got stuck in his/her ways. It has to be mandated by new
> > stricter policies against sprawl, induced by INCREASING TAXATION OF
> > GAS TO SUBSIDIZE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION, and facilitated by
> > EDUCATION as to what the consequences are of behaving in a selfish
> > manner. When we are able to point the finger at someone who arrogantly
> > drives an oversized SUV or overwhelming motorboat, we'll be on the
> > right track. And the verdict will be clear and loud: GUILTY!
> >
>
> I solved the SUV problem long ago. We need to change our driving laws
> so that penalties for driving crimes vary with the listed weight of the
> vehicle. After all a speeding highway tank is a lot more dangerous to
> others than a subcompact doing the same speed. If people knew that
> doing 80 in a 60 in a 5000 pound burb would get them a $2000 fine and a
> 3 month license suspension, they'd buy the 2000 pound car where they
> could commit the same crime and just pay $150 and that's it.
The so-called alternative transporation is already heavily subsidized.
Locally TTA gets only 11 cents-per-dollar from the fare box. Now isn't that
amazing?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 20:42:40
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: OK, here's the solution
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175285593.234783.86520@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> --If your looking at your SUV Phobia as a way to get people to
> consider alternate transportation, and reduce sprawl, you have on hell
> of a lot of work cut out for you. There has to be a lot of
> improvement, and a damned good reason for people to even consider it -
> - The price of gas isn't one of them.--
>
Except sprawl is wrong demographically. With half of our counties losing
population, we are concentrating population, anti-sprawling.
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 06:56:28
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 30, 5:58 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in messagenews:-uOdnXUMFqJuF5HbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> > In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > >> population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> > > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
> > Second only to hatred of the automobile.
>
> Planners live in a dream world of utopia building. But what really
> causes the damage are the lies they push about human behavior, all of which
> are easily disproven, but never disappear from the dream-world of make
> believe.
George, the transit arguement is never going to end because everyone
is either for it or against it. Very few people in this group are of
the "I don't give a damn how you get to work" attitude that I have.
But I have that attitude because (a) I work out of house and (b) I
live in a rural area. Bikes are a viable method of transportation for
people either. (but I did have the city lay down some hot-patch to
make a "ramp" so that bikes could go down the sidewalk without have to
go into the road. I was tired of seeing kids and tractor trailers WAY
too close. So we have bike paths in most of the city, they are called
sidewalks). So here's my question, for all of the debate about
transit, what percentage of the US population lives within some
distance, say 5 miles, of a transit line or stop (bus, rail,
whatever).
I have no statistics on it, but think it would be interesting.
Considering that NYS has a LOT of people and transit, I bet in NYS you
would only get slightly higher that 50% if you include Amtrak.
Considering that is NYS, I bet you don't get over 20-30% for the
nation as a whole. No matter what the percent, this arguement only
matters to a small minority of people.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 18:49:01
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175262988.423315.82790@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 30, 5:58 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
messagenews:-uOdnXUMFqJuF5HbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > > In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > >> population difficult to serve by buses.
> >
> > > > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
> >
> > > Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> >
> > Planners live in a dream world of utopia building. But what really
> > causes the damage are the lies they push about human behavior, all of
which
> > are easily disproven, but never disappear from the dream-world of make
> > believe.
>
>
> George, the transit arguement is never going to end because everyone
> is either for it or against it. Very few people in this group are of
> the "I don't give a damn how you get to work" attitude that I have.
> But I have that attitude because (a) I work out of house and (b) I
> live in a rural area. Bikes are a viable method of transportation for
> people either. (but I did have the city lay down some hot-patch to
> make a "ramp" so that bikes could go down the sidewalk without have to
> go into the road. I was tired of seeing kids and tractor trailers WAY
> too close. So we have bike paths in most of the city, they are called
> sidewalks). So here's my question, for all of the debate about
> transit, what percentage of the US population lives within some
> distance, say 5 miles, of a transit line or stop (bus, rail,
> whatever).
>
> I have no statistics on it, but think it would be interesting.
> Considering that NYS has a LOT of people and transit, I bet in NYS you
> would only get slightly higher that 50% if you include Amtrak.
> Considering that is NYS, I bet you don't get over 20-30% for the
> nation as a whole. No matter what the percent, this arguement only
> matters to a small minority of people.
>
Transit is only a very small percentage of total trips anyway, something
closer to 1% than any other figure.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 18:47:46
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175262988.423315.82790@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 30, 5:58 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
messagenews:-uOdnXUMFqJuF5HbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >
> > > In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> > > George Conklin <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > >> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> > > >> population difficult to serve by buses.
> >
> > > > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
> >
> > > Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> >
> > Planners live in a dream world of utopia building. But what really
> > causes the damage are the lies they push about human behavior, all of
which
> > are easily disproven, but never disappear from the dream-world of make
> > believe.
>
>
> George, the transit arguement is never going to end because everyone
> is either for it or against it. Very few people in this group are of
> the "I don't give a damn how you get to work" attitude that I have.
> But I have that attitude because (a) I work out of house and (b) I
> live in a rural area. Bikes are a viable method of transportation for
> people either. (but I did have the city lay down some hot-patch to
> make a "ramp" so that bikes could go down the sidewalk without have to
> go into the road. I was tired of seeing kids and tractor trailers WAY
> too close. So we have bike paths in most of the city, they are called
> sidewalks). So here's my question, for all of the debate about
> transit, what percentage of the US population lives within some
> distance, say 5 miles, of a transit line or stop (bus, rail,
> whatever).
>
> I have no statistics on it, but think it would be interesting.
> Considering that NYS has a LOT of people and transit, I bet in NYS you
> would only get slightly higher that 50% if you include Amtrak.
> Considering that is NYS, I bet you don't get over 20-30% for the
> nation as a whole. No matter what the percent, this arguement only
> matters to a small minority of people.
>
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 11:24:36
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 25, 7:13 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.use...@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOln...@comcast.com>,
> > "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.
>
> >Neither does mass transit.
>
> >Again, you're getting caught up in the
> >current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
> >with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
> >they can be done right.
>
> And again you've got no specifics.
>
> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>
> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
>
> >You provide no evidence. I've asked for this before, but the very
> >minimum you can do is figure out your own door-to-door commute time and
> >distance. I think you will be very fortunate if you find your average
> >speed ends up exceeding a whopping 25mph. Are you really suggesting
> >that no other form of travel could possibly beat that?
>
> Takes me 20-30 minutes to get to work in traffic. Distance is 9.5
> miles, straight line. Sure enough, quite slow. But the road distance
> is about 17 miles. So when are your mass-transit air vehicles going
> to be available?
>
> Taking transit, BTW, would be an exercise in futility. It's actually
> possible, but it would be a three bus ride taking hours.
Maybe your problem is the sprawl, not public transportation. (Tip: use
public transportation and a bike and you may both save time and a
heart attack.)
Let me recycle this post...
--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--
Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
them deserve no respect, neither good service.
In other words,
LIONS=SUVs
MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 11:34:21
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Selling The Revolution
|
> So, don quixote, What would it take to get you to sell
> us all down the river?
Well, besides T-shirts (I don't think the store is even working), I'm
selling the idea of THE REVOLUTION. Hey, don't you think of Chavez
taking over here --or even Obama (much less Osama)--, but rather to
get America going in the path toward change and civilization, say the
Canadian DEMOCRATIC way. Yes, they have signed the Kyoto Protocol,
provide Healthcare for all and stayed away from this predatory war...
So if you want to buy the idea let me know. Absolutely free. ;)
THE REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
|
| | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 11:29:39
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: in the fallout after the revolution
|
--In the fallout after the Revolution, do you think SUV's bicycles,
and Choppers will all get along? Are you privy to the new contract?
And do you have any idea regarding timing of this Revolution
project?--
I think in the fallout after the revolution, all vehicles will get
along, just not the Darwinian laws that now prevail on our roads and
in many other areas of life. There's a little republic not very far
away from America where vehicles sort of get along: the Conch
Republic. Yes, Key West has a sizeable cyclist population, and you see
its inhabitants riding their bikes in a carefree manner, though still
you see some of the old dinosaurs roaming around, mostly SUVs coming
from Miami...
It may be Darwinian in other senses like walled communities, but you
can walk around and bike around quite free and safe. You even see EVs
driving around announcing a better future. Of course, further
insurance of civilized behavior by wild SUVs can be brought about by a
SPECIAL TRUCK LICENSE (they are trucks, right?) and HIGHER GAS PRICES,
which will reduce their numbers to the category of endangered species.
About the timing of the revolution, according to ancient texts found
in the pyramids (where the first lions were buried) the end of the big
predators will be in the year 2008, which adds to 10 for a perfect
decimal calendar.
PS: I forgot to tell there's many choppers in Key West.
Here's the story found with such calendar...
VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE...
(Notice the picture of the "Sphinx," which designates a type of statue
joining a human head to the body of a lion and symbolizes sovereignty
combining the strength of the lion with a human intelligence, used to
represent royal power. Perhaps Egypt has the most notorious monuments
to self-aggrandizing and stupidity: the pyramids. All the resources
precious to the people went to feed the ego of the lions --in death.
It's also a trait of the lion that knowledge is kept for an elite.
"Knowledge is power," so the saying goes...)
Freedom in World History
http://www.hermes-press.com/history1.htm
|
| | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:50:06
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Walled communities got things well planned
|
On Apr 6, 8:55 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
> > It is keeping kids out in New Jersey. The census is about ready to
> > report
> > that in the 30 largest cities that St Growth replaces lower educational
> > levels of residents with higher educational levels, which is a proxy for
> > income. I attend demography conferences and see the data.
>
> That is known as "correlation" not "causation." Could it be that people of
> higher educational levels seek out more well-thought-out places?-
Well thought out and well walled too. They usually choose the latter
when they --the educated, a proxy for the prosperous-- stay behind.
Walled communities got things well planned...
FORTRESS AMERICA:
GATED AND WALLED COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gated communities can be classified in three main categories based on
the priy motivation of their residents. First are the Lifestyle
communities, where the gates provide security and separation for the
leisure activities and amenities within. These include retirement
communities; golf and country club leisure developments; and suburban
new towns.
Second are the Elite communities, where the gates symbolize
distinction and prestige and both create and protect a secure place on
the social ladder. These include enclaves of the rich and famous;
developments for the top fifth, the very affluent; and the executive
home developments, for the middle class.
The third type is the Security Zone, where the fear of crime and
outsiders is the foremost motivation for defensive fortifications.
This category includes the middle class perch, attempting to protect
property and property values; the working class perch, often in
deteriorating areas of the city; and the low income perch, including
public housing, where crime is acute.
There is little doubt that urban problems are the stimuli for this
wave of gating. The drive for separation, distinction, exclusion, and
protection, is fueled in part by dramatic demographic change in the
metropolitan areas with large numbers of gated communities. High
levels of foreign immigration, a growing underclass and a restructured
economy are rapidly changing the face of many metropolitan areas.
Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of the larger spatial
pattern of segmentation and separation. America is increasingly
separated by income, race and economic opportunity. Suburbanization
does not mean a lessening of segregation, but only a redistribution of
the urban patterns of discrimination.
Minority and immigrant suburbanization is concentrated in the inner
ring and old manufacturing suburbs. At the same time, poverty is no
longer concentrated in the central city, but is suburbanizing, racing
ever farther out in the metropolitan area.
http://www.cproundtable.org/cprwww/docs/equity/05fort.htm
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:25:43
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Walled communities got things well planned
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
> Gated communities are themselves a microcosm of the larger spatial
> pattern of segmentation and separation.
Well, you should look at South America and Europe, where houses have walls
along the street, a sure sign of European and South American segmentation,
right? No, wait a minute, everything they do in Europe is better, right?
First planners condemn houses with yards as selfish use of space.
They want it all open to the world, anyone can walk in.
Then if people put up a fence or a wall, they get mad. Can't have it both
ways boys.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 13:45:30
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 5, 4:34 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
> > unplanned and stupid? Have you seen anything unplanned that produces
> > the intended results, or you couldn't care less about the results, and
> > you just want to go against common sense?
>
> What bothers me is that I've seen the lie that is the horribly mis-named
> "St Growth." It's an invention of developers to increase profits, at
> the expense of the communities that it destroys. They're able to con a
> few faux-environmentalists to support them, and of course they can get
> the politicians that are owned by the building trades unions to support
> building anything, no matter how destructive it is.
>
> The result of "St Growth" where I live is more driving, less cycling,
> less walking, increased traffic, over-crowded schools, destruction of
> local businesses, and loss of major employers. All of this is not
> intentional, rather it's a byproduct of the lack of a systems level
> approach when doing planning. It's what you'd expect from developers
> that plop down a high-density block of condos with unleasable stores on
> the bottom, then run away to count their money leaving the community to
> deal with the fallout from their "stness." When you try to tell the
> politicians what the results will be, they label you as anti-growth,
> NIMBY, etc., they just don't want to hear the facts.
>
> On the other hand, I've seen new developments which were really
> "st-growth" but not labeled as such. The developers made allowances
> for schools, shopping, industry, housing, roads, recreation, etc. This
> is more like "intelligent growth" than faux "St Growth." All this is
> financed by special property tax assessments, in California it's called
> Mello-Roos. It makes the property a tougher sell because of the higher
> taxes.
Oh, I get you, you are talking about fake st development, but that
we got everywhere, and it's part of the general lies we live under.
It's called CAMOUFLAGE, in jungle talk.
You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
For example:
(this is serious)
'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
rights, and humanitarian relief.'
http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faresponse11226/paula-j-dobriansky-thomas-carothers/democracy-promotion.html
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 15:14:31
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where
the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra
Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley.
A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story.
"http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html"
The whole thing collapsed when it was made public.
The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build
housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space
is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans
for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a
campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to
residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to
develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing
there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement
for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:36:55
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:4616c648$0$27159$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> > children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
>
> My favorite story was when the Sierra Club thought they had a deal where
> the developers would pay $100 million dollars and in return the Sierra
> Club would not oppose development in San Jose's Coyote Valley.
>
> A Sierra Club member, upset by this extortion, leaked the story.
>
> "http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/01/02/story2.html"
>
> The whole thing collapsed when it was made public.
>
> The city of San Jose, to their credit, is not letting developers build
> housing in the Coyote Valley until the industrial and commercial space
> is developed and sold (or leased). Both Apple and Cisco abandoned plans
> for large campuses in that area. Apple sold the land and is adding a
> campus in Cupertino (and they oppose the conversion of commercial to
> residential) while Cisco may still own the land but has no plans to
> develop it. The developers are chomping at the bit to build housing
> there. They tried to elect a mayor that would eliminate the requirement
> for intelligent growth, but they lost...for now.
The computer industry knows it cannot command its employees to live in a
St Growth ghetto. You should be st enough to see that too, but I
guess not.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 14:26:26
From: Bill
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
>
> For example:
>
> (this is serious)
>
> 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
> in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
> also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
> nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
> we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
> rights, and humanitarian relief.'
No shit. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
We have no REAL partnerships because they will shit on us and change
sides as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is
way overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put
you out of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our
money.
Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.
I wonder if Bush even realizes what a joke he is getting to be known as?
>
> http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/20030501faresponse11226/paula-j-dobriansky-thomas-carothers/democracy-promotion.html
Above link requires login and password.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 16:37:50
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: the future is up in the air
|
This may sound Quixotic, but the future is up in the air, not in the
sense the Republicans make it likely, but in the sense of windmills.
Regrettably, not enough money is going into it, since --as you may
very well know, unless you are blind-- our resources are going into
war and other stupid ways to secure a long life for the dinosaurs, ie
the SUVs...
Wind Power Set to Become World's Leading Energy Source
Lester R. Brown
In 1991, a national wind resource inventory taken by the U.S.
Department of Energy startled the world when it reported that the
three most wind-rich states-North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas-had enough
harnessable wind energy to satisfy national electricity needs. Now a
new study by a team of engineers at Stanford reports that the wind
energy potential is actually substantially greater than that estimated
in 1991.
Advances in wind turbine design since 1991 allow turbines to operate
at lower wind speeds, to harness more of the wind's energy, and to
harvest it at greater heights-dramatically expanding the harnessable
wind resource. Add to this the recent bullish assessments of offshore
wind potential, and the enormity of the wind resource becomes
apparent. Wind power can meet not only all U.S. electricity needs, but
all U.S. energy needs.
...
Denk leads the world in the share of its electricity from wind-20
percent. In terms of sheer generating capacity, Germany leads with
12,000 megawatts. By the end of 2003, it will have already surpassed
its 2010 goal of 12,500 megawatts of generating capacity. For Germany,
this rapid growth in wind power is central to reaching its goal of
reducing carbon emissions 40 percent by 2020.
...
The energy future belongs to wind. The world energy economy became
progressively more global during the twentieth century as the world
turned to oil. It promises to reverse direction and become more local
during the twenty-first century as the world turns to wind, wind-
generated hydrogen, and solar cells. Wind and wind-generated hydrogen
will shape not only the energy sector of the global economy but the
global economy itself.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update24.htm
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Apr 2007 15:54:17
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 14, 7:33 pm, "johnny@." <johnny@. > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > ""We don't want to pollute - but it's OK if China does - - - ""
>
> >> Welcome to the Global Economy
>
> >> It's not politics - - It's business
>
> >> Remember supply and demand. How about we demand, and they supply. It's a new version of > the NIMBY syndrome. We want (just for you) new bicycles, but don't be polluting our air to
> >> make it for me.
>
> > You may as well may have given it the title "Welcome to the Jungle"...
> > which proves my point that we reject civilization in order to eat each
> > other --or may I say in order to compete unequally, where the unions --
> > American unions-- are crushed before the never tiring, never
> > complaining Chinese workers...
>
> Oh, they complain, but when they do, they get crushed. By tanks!
Here the picture is different: You can complain, but they don't
listen. ;)
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:14:21
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:xOyRh.1596$zC.1358@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
>> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> (this is serious)
>>
>> 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
>> in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
>> also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
>> nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
>> we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
>> rights, and humanitarian relief.'
>
> No shit. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
> Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
> We have no REAL partnerships because they will shit on us and change sides
> as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is way
> overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put you out
> of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our money.
> Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
> Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
> Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
> appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
> home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.
I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media attention.
Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely wiped
off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of some
sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get back
to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New Orleans
chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
failed them so badly in power.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 12:05:02
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:50ERh.28992$_a1.28425@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
attention.
> Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely
wiped
> off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of
some
> sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
> the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get
back
> to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New
Orleans
> chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
> failed them so badly in power.
>
Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion on
our own nation?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 19:16:29
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
>Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion on
>our own nation?
Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
going on in Iraq?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 19:28:46
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
on
> >our own nation?
>
> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
> going on in Iraq?
>
I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 15:24:57
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <131gkr8lng5ls1a@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
>on
>> >our own nation?
>>
>> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
>> going on in Iraq?
>>
>I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
"Whoosh!" That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 17:39:48
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:l4ednQEA5d8E0oTbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <131gkr8lng5ls1a@corp.supernews.com>,
> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
billion
> >on
> >> >our own nation?
> >>
> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
> >> going on in Iraq?
> >>
> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
>
> "Whoosh!" That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
>
You have no point. You are simply trying to distract from the issue. The
issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraqi's or
whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 10:20:22
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <131j2rhjkao2j90@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:l4ednQEA5d8E0oTbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <131gkr8lng5ls1a@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> >news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> >> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>billion
>> >on
>> >> >our own nation?
>> >>
>> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
>> >> going on in Iraq?
>> >>
>> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
>>
>> "Whoosh!" That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
>>
>You have no point. You are simply trying to distract from the issue. The
>issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraqi's or
>whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
The point is that with all that money the US government spent in Iraq,
all it has done is fuck that country up. Why do you think if the
government spent a tenth or a fiftieth of it here, it wouldn't fuck it
up just as badly?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 10:56:10
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:0qWdnYerl9OrNobbnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <131j2rhjkao2j90@corp.supernews.com>,
> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >news:l4ednQEA5d8E0oTbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> In article <131gkr8lng5ls1a@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> >> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
> >billion
> >> >on
> >> >> >our own nation?
> >> >>
> >> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
> >> >> going on in Iraq?
> >> >>
> >> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
> >>
> >> "Whoosh!" That's the sound of the point flying over your head.
> >>
> >You have no point. You are simply trying to distract from the issue.
The
> >issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on Iraqi's or
> >whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
>
> The point is that with all that money the US government spent in Iraq,
> all it has done is fuck that country up. Why do you think if the
> government spent a tenth or a fiftieth of it here, it wouldn't fuck it
> up just as badly?
Your "point" is bullshit. If your wife was sending all your money to Darfur
and neglecting your kids you'd be pissed. Same principle applies here.
And your characterization that the "government" can't help people is
Ideological and not supported by facts.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 12:21:02
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:28:46 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
>on
>> >our own nation?
>>
>> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
>> going on in Iraq?
>>
>I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
>
After instituting regime change, the US took on a responsibility to
all those in Iraq who tried to make it work. While I am dubious about
the invasion and the reasoning behind it, it would be insane to leave
things open to something even worse than Sadaam for the people of
Iraq. It also would signal that it is not safe to ally with the
United States and that resisting them passively is safer.
Sadaam may well have had weapons of mass destruction or thought he had
but because Bush, Rumsfield and Cheney believed in invasion on the
budget plan and allowed looting of the ministries we will never know.
Rumsfield is Bush's Macnaa, another management droid who dismisses
the idea that the military might know something about war.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 17:41:56
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:v2nh1397p59l9o2vamf89ea420d5oh7tkh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:28:46 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
billion
> >on
> >> >our own nation?
> >>
> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
> >> going on in Iraq?
> >>
> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
> >
> After instituting regime change, the US took on a responsibility to
> all those in Iraq who tried to make it work. While I am dubious about
> the invasion and the reasoning behind it, it would be insane to leave
> things open to something even worse than Sadaam for the people of
> Iraq. It also would signal that it is not safe to ally with the
> United States and that resisting them passively is safer.
>
Gamblers excuse. We need to recognize it's past time to cut our losses -
we'll come out ahead in the long run.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 01:06:46
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:41:56 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:v2nh1397p59l9o2vamf89ea420d5oh7tkh@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:28:46 -0700, "Baxter"
>> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> >news:y8OdnVC_JvXAqYXbnZ2dnUVZ_tOmnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> >> In article <131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com>,
>> >> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>billion
>> >on
>> >> >our own nation?
>> >>
>> >> Be happy about that -- do you really want even 2% of the shit that's
>> >> going on in Iraq?
>> >>
>> >I want us OUT of Iraq, and building our OWN country.
>> >
>> After instituting regime change, the US took on a responsibility to
>> all those in Iraq who tried to make it work. While I am dubious about
>> the invasion and the reasoning behind it, it would be insane to leave
>> things open to something even worse than Sadaam for the people of
>> Iraq. It also would signal that it is not safe to ally with the
>> United States and that resisting them passively is safer.
>>
>Gamblers excuse. We need to recognize it's past time to cut our losses -
>we'll come out ahead in the long run.
>
The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com >,
Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote:
>
>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
indefinitely.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2007 20:03:24
From: Chris
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
news:tMudnQXoyMcWNobbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>
> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
> indefinitely.
>
I think that is the US governmaents intent
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 May 2007 09:09:32
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On 07 May 2007 20:03:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com > wrote:
>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
>news:tMudnQXoyMcWNobbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>>
>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.
>>
>
>I think that is the US governmaents intent
That was unclear. Do you think the intent is to have a group hostile
to US interests come out on top, or to have a permanent occupation. I
can make a case for either.
The permanent occupation is a likely goal, because we are, after all,
building 14 permanent bases including the "US Embassy", actually one
huge base. This will give the US control of the oil.
However a hostile government is also a plus, depending on how one
defines US interests. If the interests are those of the average
American, this is a bad thing. But if you're talking about corporate
interests, then an enemy is great. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, it was looking like we could actually get a reduction in
military spending, I think we were hoping for something called a
"peace dividend".
That, however, was a threat to the corporations that make their
obscene profits from the war industries; that's what Eisenhower was
referring to with his "military-industrial complex" speech. So, we
needed another enemy. They tried using Gadaffi but even they couldn't
blow him up into a real threat.
Of course, we managed to blow Iran into a huge threat now, so perhaps
we can just take Iraq and still have Iran as a boogyman. Yes, that's a
good plan. Something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on,
since they both feed off the GE-NBC-Etc corporate teat. Hmm, let's
see, yes, combining large "defense" industries with the dominant media
companies! What a great idea.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 May 2007 12:23:16
From: Chris
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote in
news:3rs043l1epo47quhtcpop93jm8af2na4pm@4ax.com:
> On 07 May 2007 20:03:24 GMT, Chris <chris@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote in
>>news:tMudnQXoyMcWNobbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
>>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it
after
>>>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US
troops
>>>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives
daily
>>>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>>>
>>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat
up
>>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out
on
>>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>> indefinitely.
>>>
>>
>>I think that is the US governmaents intent
>
> That was unclear. Do you think the intent is to have a group hostile
> to US interests come out on top, or to have a permanent occupation. I
> can make a case for either.
>
> The permanent occupation is a likely goal, because we are, after all,
> building 14 permanent bases including the "US Embassy", actually one
> huge base. This will give the US control of the oil.
>
> However a hostile government is also a plus, depending on how one
> defines US interests. If the interests are those of the average
> American, this is a bad thing. But if you're talking about corporate
> interests, then an enemy is great. After the collapse of the Soviet
> Union, it was looking like we could actually get a reduction in
> military spending, I think we were hoping for something called a
> "peace dividend".
>
> That, however, was a threat to the corporations that make their
> obscene profits from the war industries; that's what Eisenhower was
> referring to with his "military-industrial complex" speech. So, we
> needed another enemy. They tried using Gadaffi but even they couldn't
> blow him up into a real threat.
>
> Of course, we managed to blow Iran into a huge threat now, so perhaps
> we can just take Iraq and still have Iran as a boogyman. Yes, that's a
> good plan. Something that Republicans and Democrats can agree on,
> since they both feed off the GE-NBC-Etc corporate teat. Hmm, let's
> see, yes, combining large "defense" industries with the dominant media
> companies! What a great idea.
>
You hit the nail.........
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 10:18:10
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
>Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>
>Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>indefinitely.
I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
corporation Haliburton.
Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.
None of them have a use for Al Queda, so all 1000 foreigners will be
leaving and heading back to Afghanistan where our oil industry puppet
Karzid has just assured us that the Taliban are defeated. That's the
guy who can't leave Kabul but as long as Occidental Petroleum is
happy, that's all that really matters anyway, right?
Nope, they all know what this is about, which is more than I can say
for the US public, although most of them are figuring it out. It is,
and always was, about controlling Iraq's oil. Once we're gone, they'll
work it out.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 13:14:56
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <guqp13llkpuc4fmc5qjcjoahetb1taicuu@4ax.com >,
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>indefinitely.
>
>I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>
>But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
>together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
>corporation Haliburton.
>
>Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
>have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
>oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
>back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.
Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
violence because of the bad old United States.
Yeah, right. Nobody "has to" negotiate with anyone. If Turkey won't
allow the Kurds to set up an independent country, and the Kurds want
that bad enough, they don't have to negotiate; they can fight. Even if
Saudi Arabia doesn't like what the Shiites are doing, Saudi Arabia
lacks the military might to do anything about it. So the Sunnis and
the Shiites can continue to fight. And they'll both fight the Kurds
and the Turks. And that's not even considering the fighting within
those groups.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 08:15:54
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:14:56 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <guqp13llkpuc4fmc5qjcjoahetb1taicuu@4ax.com>,
>dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>>full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>>top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>>indefinitely.
>>
>>I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>>is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>>That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>>
>>But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
>>together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
>>corporation Haliburton.
>>
>>Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
>>have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
>>oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
>>back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.
>
>Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
>of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
>violence because of the bad old United States.
>
Most folks around the world want only two things, a place to live and
a job. Islam, for the most part, is a peaceful religion. Extremists
exist in all types of religions and exploit them for their own
agendas. Remove the US occupation and the extremists will be on the
outs.
Look at Iran. Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs were clinging to
power and there were large pro-western demonstrations. As soon as we
invaded, the mullahs were firmly back in power.
Matthew, seriously, what do you thing the invasion of Iraq was all
about? The fact that I even have to ask that question says a lot.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 10:56:11
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <5e8s13hp6qg63dthdjoaq7l2de2lh2ldtt@4ax.com >,
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:14:56 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>
>>Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
>>of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
>>violence because of the bad old United States.
>
>Most folks around the world want only two things, a place to live and
>a job. Islam, for the most part, is a peaceful religion. Extremists
>exist in all types of religions and exploit them for their own
>agendas. Remove the US occupation and the extremists will be on the
>outs.
Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
>Look at Iran. Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs were clinging to
>power and there were large pro-western demonstrations. As soon as we
>invaded, the mullahs were firmly back in power.
Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs in Iran had been in power for many
years, and they still remain so. They were never in any danger of
being ousted.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:28:02
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:56:11 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <5e8s13hp6qg63dthdjoaq7l2de2lh2ldtt@4ax.com>,
>dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:14:56 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
>>>of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
>>>violence because of the bad old United States.
>>
>>Most folks around the world want only two things, a place to live and
>>a job. Islam, for the most part, is a peaceful religion. Extremists
>>exist in all types of religions and exploit them for their own
>>agendas. Remove the US occupation and the extremists will be on the
>>outs.
>
>Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
>every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
>has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
>Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
>idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
>by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
>
>>Look at Iran. Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs were clinging to
>>power and there were large pro-western demonstrations. As soon as we
>>invaded, the mullahs were firmly back in power.
>
>Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs in Iran had been in power for many
>years, and they still remain so. They were never in any danger of
>being ousted.
I repeat Matthew, what was the Iraq invasion all about? Come on, you
know.
And you are wrong about Iran. The mullahs were losing their grip on
power. Our invasion of Iraq ended that, for the short term.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 20:38:13
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <01vu135ff3pjjj2mjmc8hqkdcbk6eksnkj@4ax.com >,
dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 10:56:11 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
>>every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
>>has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
>>Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
>>idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
>>by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
>>
>>>Look at Iran. Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs were clinging to
>>>power and there were large pro-western demonstrations. As soon as we
>>>invaded, the mullahs were firmly back in power.
>>
>>Before we invaded Iraq, the mullahs in Iran had been in power for many
>>years, and they still remain so. They were never in any danger of
>>being ousted.
>
>
>I repeat Matthew, what was the Iraq invasion all about? Come on, you
>know.
Actually, I don't. It wasn't about oil, or at least not in the
obvious way. The fact that Saddam took a shot at Bush's daddy
probably had something to do with it.
>And you are wrong about Iran. The mullahs were losing their grip on
>power. Our invasion of Iraq ended that, for the short term.
The mullahs have supposedly been losing their grip since the joke "The
Ayatollah Khomeni thanks you on behalf of the moderates in Iran" was
current, during the Reagan era. All wishful thinking.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:28:57
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:xfWdnRDTgrMGy4PbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
> every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
> has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
> Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
> idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
> by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
Leave them to work out their own problems. Or do you think we should be a
Nanny State?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 20:23:45
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <131tua24lsa9va9@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:xfWdnRDTgrMGy4PbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
>> every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
>> has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
>> Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
>> idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
>> by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
>
>Leave them to work out their own problems. Or do you think we should be a
>Nanny State?
Oh, no, I agree that the US should withdraw. I simply disagree about
the outcome of that withdrawal.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 09:28:01
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:28:57 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:xfWdnRDTgrMGy4PbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have left
>> every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
>> has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
>> Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
>> idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
>> by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
>
>Leave them to work out their own problems. Or do you think we should be a
>Nanny State?
>
See, only the US is full of compassionate peaceful folks. Everyone one
else is hateful and cruel. They need us to keep them from fighting
each other. The good old White Man's Burden.
There was never any plan nor intention to leave. That is the bottom
line.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 10:04:44
From: Bob in CT
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:28:01 -0400, dgk <dgk@somewhere.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:28:57 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>> -
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> news:xfWdnRDTgrMGy4PbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>
>>> Fantasy. Utter fantasy. Remove the US occupation and you still have
>>> left
>>> every grudge, every grievance, every complaint that one Iraqi group
>>> has against another, not to mention the complaints they have with
>>> Iraq's neighbors (and Iraq's neighbors likely ambitions in Iraq). The
>>> idea that Iraq is filled with reasonable people turned to radicalism
>>> by the US occupation is simply a fairy tale.
>>
>> Leave them to work out their own problems. Or do you think we should
>> be a
>> Nanny State?
>>
>
> See, only the US is full of compassionate peaceful folks. Everyone one
> else is hateful and cruel. They need us to keep them from fighting
> each other. The good old White Man's Burden.
>
> There was never any plan nor intention to leave. That is the bottom
> line.
Although I think we're wrong to be in Iraq, even I think there was a plan
to leave one day.
--
Bob in CT
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 18:40:40
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <guqp13llkpuc4fmc5qjcjoahetb1taicuu@4ax.com>,
> dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>> indefinitely.
>> I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>> is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>> That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>>
>> But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
>> together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
>> corporation Haliburton.
>>
>> Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
>> have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
>> oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
>> back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.
>
> Another one believing in the fantasy of Iraq being filled with a bunch
> of reasonable groups with reasonable aims who are only engaging in
> violence because of the bad old United States.
>
> Yeah, right. Nobody "has to" negotiate with anyone. If Turkey won't
> allow the Kurds to set up an independent country, and the Kurds want
> that bad enough, they don't have to negotiate; they can fight. Even if
> Saudi Arabia doesn't like what the Shiites are doing, Saudi Arabia
> lacks the military might to do anything about it. So the Sunnis and
> the Shiites can continue to fight. And they'll both fight the Kurds
> and the Turks. And that's not even considering the fighting within
> those groups.
There's always gas to eliminate the problem and leave the buildings
standing. I would vote for about 10 Megatons each over Baghdad and
Tehran but that might be politically incorrect to the Russians who would
get a bit of fallout.
We have now been there longer than WWII and accomplished much less,
unless bankrupting the country counts for something.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 04:17:17
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>> the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>> are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>> to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>> tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.
>
> I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
> is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
> That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
We do have about 21 more months of 'you know who' and his 'hunting'
buddy, so that is how long we will have too many troops there and not at
home.
>
> But, assuming we do withdraw the military, things will likely come
> together in Iraq, although perhaps not to the liking of former US
> corporation Haliburton.
>
> Turkey will not allow the Kurds an independent country so they will
> have to negotiate. Saudi Arabia will not allow the Sunnis to be denied
> oil wealth so the Shias and Kurds will have to negotiate. Iran will
> back the Shia, so the Kurds and Sunnis will have to negotiate.
They all hate us, but they damn sure won't stop taking our money.
>
> None of them have a use for Al Queda, so all 1000 foreigners will be
> leaving and heading back to Afghanistan where our oil industry puppet
> Karzid has just assured us that the Taliban are defeated. That's the
> guy who can't leave Kabul but as long as Occidental Petroleum is
> happy, that's all that really matters anyway, right?
>
> Nope, they all know what this is about, which is more than I can say
> for the US public, although most of them are figuring it out. It is,
> and always was, about controlling Iraq's oil. Once we're gone, they'll
> work it out.
Yeah,
THEY can work it out, and we get to figure how to re-integrate a lot of
National Guard troops to civilian life. Add tens of thousands of new
amputees' and we have to support them for life if it was serious enough.
How come the National Guard never got to call up Bush Jr.???
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 08:10:11
From: dgk
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 04:17:17 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>dgk wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:21:47 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
>>> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>>> the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>>> are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>>> to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>>> tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>>> indefinitely.
>>
>> I disagree completely. It doesn't really matter until our government
>> is out of power, because they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.
>> That's what the 14 permanent bases is all about.
>
>We do have about 21 more months of 'you know who' and his 'hunting'
>buddy, so that is how long we will have too many troops there and not at
>home.
>>
I don't know if that's the case. The Democrats are really controlled
by the same corporate interests as the Republicans. Well, most of the
Democrats, certainly Hillary. I think the original plan, as advanced
by the Project for a New American Century, was to install a government
friendly to "American" interests. Now, my interests are not the same
as those of GE, ADM, Halliburton, etc. But, let's face it, until
things change dramatically our way of life requires big oil.
But Chalabi, who was supposed to be the front of the friendly
government, proved to have other interests, apparently those of Iran.
The most astonishing thing to me was that, even before this all broke,
our big ally in Iraq was the Committee for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq. I mean really, we overthrew a guy who was a secular bulwark
against Islamic extremism and replaced him with, what?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:11:32
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:tMudnQXoyMcWNobbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
> >the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
> >are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
> >to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
> >tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>
> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
> indefinitely.
>
As soon as the US leaves, the various parties realize there's nobody to
"protect" them and sit down and negotiate. Al Qaeda gets thrown out of
Iraq - if not killed first.
Currently, nearly ALL groups in Iraq are hostile to the US.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 13:05:33
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <131oh0v1n3gvnd7@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:tMudnQXoyMcWNobbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
>> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
>> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
>> indefinitely.
>>
>As soon as the US leaves, the various parties realize there's nobody to
>"protect" them and sit down and negotiate.
Now there's fantasy for you.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 18:00:50
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:tMudnQXoyMcWNobbnZ2dnUVZ_h-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com>,
> Clark F Morris <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
>>the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
>>are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
>>to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
>>tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
>
> Iraq can't work. As soon as the US leaves, the civil war will heat up
> full time and continue until some group hostile to the US comes out on
> top. This is inevitable, unless the US maintains the occupation
> indefinitely.
Then we become a fully-colonian power!!!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 20:57:51
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Iraq responsibility was Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:c74j1313bn00b3s1emland7ij7po57kdou@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 17:41:56 -0700, "Baxter"
> <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>
> >Gamblers excuse. We need to recognize it's past time to cut our losses -
> >we'll come out ahead in the long run.
> >
> The US took on a responsibility to those who cooperated with it after
> the invasion. How it treats those people may determine how US troops
> are treated in the future. Many people are risking their lives daily
> to make Iraq work. I for one don't want to see them left to the
> tender mercies of the various groups directing the suicide bombers.
Still the Gamblers Excuse. It's past time for surgery.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 17:53:40
From: di
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
> -
>.
>>
> Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
> on
> our own nation?
>
Our own nation is not New Orleans, we already sunk millions into that place,
most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 19:27:55
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
> > -
> >.
> >>
> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
> > on
> > our own nation?
> >
> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>we already sunk millions into that place,
> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>
Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made sure
of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 10:16:51
From: di
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
>> > -
>> >.
>> >>
>> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>> > billion
>> > on
>> > our own nation?
>> >
>> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
>
> New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>
>>we already sunk millions into that place,
>> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>>
> Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made sure
> of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years they
still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or group
can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like New
Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more money at
it, especially someone else's money.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 17:38:00
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:sH7Sh.66763$mJ1.39394@newsfe22.lga...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > -
> >> >.
> >> >>
> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
> >> > billion
> >> > on
> >> > our own nation?
> >> >
> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
> >
> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
> >
> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
> >>
> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made
sure
> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
>
> This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years
they
> still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or
group
> can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
> patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like New
> Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
> promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more money
at
> it, especially someone else's money.
What's "liberal" about taking care of your own people instead of throwing
away our tax money on Iraqi's who hate us?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 20:29:24
From: di
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131j2o5jm2ebl44@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:sH7Sh.66763$mJ1.39394@newsfe22.lga...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > -
>> >> >.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>> >> > billion
>> >> > on
>> >> > our own nation?
>> >> >
>> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
>> >
>> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>> >
>> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
>> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>> >>
>> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made
> sure
>> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
>>
>> This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years
> they
>> still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or
> group
>> can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
>> patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like New
>> Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
>> promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more money
> at
>> it, especially someone else's money.
>
> What's "liberal" about taking care of your own people instead of throwing
> away our tax money on Iraqi's who hate us?
>
>
Because we've already spent millions down there, it was mostly all
squandered to waste and corruption with very little noticeable results.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 20:54:02
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:JFgSh.67015$mJ1.21882@newsfe22.lga...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131j2o5jm2ebl44@corp.supernews.com...
> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:sH7Sh.66763$mJ1.39394@newsfe22.lga...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> > -
> >> >> >.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
> >> >> > billion
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > our own nation?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
> >> >
> >> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
> >> >
> >> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
> >> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
> >> >>
> >> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made
> > sure
> >> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
> >>
> >> This is a good example of the liberal mentality, after all these years
> > they
> >> still think they can pick up a turd by the clean end. Any person or
> > group
> >> can help inprove their own status, it takes a little ambition, a little
> >> patience, and a lot of work, 3 things that are missing in places like
New
> >> Orleans. The "system" you are referring to is the very system you are
> >> promoting. You think the solution to any problem is to throw more
money
> > at
> >> it, especially someone else's money.
> >
> > What's "liberal" about taking care of your own people instead of
throwing
> > away our tax money on Iraqi's who hate us?
>
> Because we've already spent millions down there, it was mostly all
> squandered to waste and corruption with very little noticeable results.
>
And Billions have been squandered to waste an corruption in Iraq - with
NEGATIVE results.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 09:14:09
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
>> > -
>> >.
>> >>
>> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>> > billion
>> > on
>> > our own nation?
>> >
>> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
>
> New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>
>>we already sunk millions into that place,
>> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>>
> Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made sure
> of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
So you're saying that the democratic process that would have allowed them to
elect a more helpful mayor was rigged?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 17:34:03
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:DM6Sh.29942$B7.458@bigfe9...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > -
> >> >.
> >> >>
> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
> >> > billion
> >> > on
> >> > our own nation?
> >> >
> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
> >
> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
> >
> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
> >>
> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made
sure
> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
>
> So you're saying that the democratic process that would have allowed them
to
> elect a more helpful mayor was rigged?
>
Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of
dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
(and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in LA.)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Apr 2007 21:01:16
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:DM6Sh.29942$B7.458@bigfe9...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131gkpm3i060gff@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:KhVRh.53811$nh4.45516@newsfe20.lga...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > -
>> >> >.
>> >> >>
>> >> > Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2
>> >> > billion
>> >> > on
>> >> > our own nation?
>> >> >
>> >> Our own nation is not New Orleans,
>> >
>> > New Oreans IS part of the United States.
>> >
>> >>we already sunk millions into that place,
>> >> most of the people there are not willing to even help themselves.
>> >>
>> > Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made
> sure
>> > of that -- and Continues to make sure of that.
>>
>> So you're saying that the democratic process that would have allowed them
> to
>> elect a more helpful mayor was rigged?
>>
> Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of
> dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own people.
>
> (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in
> LA.)
Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana are
somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't? What does the
amount of money we are spending in Iraq have to do with urban planning, when
you get down to it?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 20:56:45
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions of
> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
people.
> >
> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in
> > LA.)
>
> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana are
> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
Your question is nonsensical.
>What does the
> amount of money we are spending in Iraq have to do with urban planning,
when
> you get down to it?
>
This has got to be Ideological Ignorance.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 07:56:22
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions
>> > of
>> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
> people.
>> >
>> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair in
>> > LA.)
>>
>> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana are
>> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
>
> Your question is nonsensical.
Obviously you don't have an answer then.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 10:58:11
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >>
> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of billions
> >> > of
> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
> > people.
> >> >
> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair
in
> >> > LA.)
> >>
> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana are
> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
> >
> > Your question is nonsensical.
>
> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>
No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might be
more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in the
news.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 16:35:12
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >>
>> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
>> >> > billions
>> >> > of
>> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
>> > people.
>> >> >
>> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly fair
> in
>> >> > LA.)
>> >>
>> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
>> >> are
>> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
>> >
>> > Your question is nonsensical.
>>
>> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>>
> No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might be
> more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in the
> news.
I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:12:34
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:9qTSh.1456$XU4.1346@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
> >> >> > billions
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
> >> > people.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly
fair
> > in
> >> >> > LA.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
> >> >> are
> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
> >> >
> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
> >>
> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
> >>
> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might
be
> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in
the
> > news.
>
> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>
Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 23:53:21
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131oh2rj5r6o046@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:9qTSh.1456$XU4.1346@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
>> >> >> > billions
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our own
>> >> > people.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly
> fair
>> > in
>> >> >> > LA.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of Louisiana
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
>> >> >
>> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>> >>
>> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question might
> be
>> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in
> the
>> > news.
>>
>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> techniques...If
>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>>
> Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
That's what I was asking you to do.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:19:04
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:WQZSh.1588$XU4.1355@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131oh2rj5r6o046@corp.supernews.com...
> > -
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:9qTSh.1456$XU4.1346@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> > message
> >> >> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
> >> >> >> > billions
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our
own
> >> >> > people.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not particularly
> > fair
> >> > in
> >> >> >> > LA.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of
Louisiana
> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
> >> >>
> >> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question
might
> > be
> >> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are in
> > the
> >> > news.
> >>
> >> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> > techniques...If
> >> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> >> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
> >>
> > Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
>
> That's what I was asking you to do.
>
Let's see - you want *me* to explain the relelavance of *your* response?!
That's the sort of thing Conklin does.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 22:24:57
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131tto24b6rt51a@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:WQZSh.1588$XU4.1355@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131oh2rj5r6o046@corp.supernews.com...
>> > -
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:9qTSh.1456$XU4.1346@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> > news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>> > message
>> >> >> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
>> >> >> >> > billions
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on our
> own
>> >> >> > people.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not
>> >> >> >> > particularly
>> > fair
>> >> > in
>> >> >> >> > LA.)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of
> Louisiana
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>> >> >>
>> >> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question
> might
>> > be
>> >> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are
>> >> > in
>> > the
>> >> > news.
>> >>
>> >> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> > techniques...If
>> >> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> >> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>> >>
>> > Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
>>
>> That's what I was asking you to do.
>>
> Let's see - you want *me* to explain the relelavance of *your* response?!
> That's the sort of thing Conklin does.
No, I want you to explain why you think your feeling that the people of New
Orleans are somehow uniquely downtrodden has anything to do with the topic
of this threat or even this forum as a whole. And as an aside, do you have
any direct experience of the area that was hit by Katrina to base your
reaction on?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 09:31:32
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:0KCTh.1517$Wm.1398@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:131tto24b6rt51a@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:WQZSh.1588$XU4.1355@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> news:131oh2rj5r6o046@corp.supernews.com...
> >> > -
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:9qTSh.1456$XU4.1346@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> > message
> >> >> > news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> >> > message
> >> >> >> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds of
> >> >> >> >> > billions
> >> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on
our
> > own
> >> >> >> > people.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not
> >> >> >> >> > particularly
> >> > fair
> >> >> > in
> >> >> >> >> > LA.)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of
> > Louisiana
> >> >> >> >> are
> >> >> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question
> > might
> >> > be
> >> >> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that are
> >> >> > in
> >> > the
> >> >> > news.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> >> > techniques...If
> >> >> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> >> >> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
> >> >>
> >> > Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
> >>
> >> That's what I was asking you to do.
> >>
> > Let's see - you want *me* to explain the relelavance of *your*
response?!
> > That's the sort of thing Conklin does.
>
> No, I want you to explain why you think your feeling that the people of
New
> Orleans are somehow uniquely downtrodden has anything to do with the topic
> of this threat or even this forum as a whole. And as an aside, do you
have
> any direct experience of the area that was hit by Katrina to base your
> reaction on?
>
"Feeling that the people of New Orleans are somehow uniquely downtrodden"
are YOUR words - YOU explain them.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 15:37:57
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:13220h5ibjmjl68@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:0KCTh.1517$Wm.1398@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:131tto24b6rt51a@corp.supernews.com...
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:WQZSh.1588$XU4.1355@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:131oh2rj5r6o046@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> > -
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> > news:9qTSh.1456$XU4.1346@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:131nk45cl8ou84c@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>> > message
>> >> >> > news:KPLSh.933$Zm3.864@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:131m2rbi5nbejdb@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> >> >> > news:z7hSh.44477$68.10415@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> >> news:131j2gpg6iu575f@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Do stay on track - the issue is whether we spend hundreds
>> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > billions
>> >> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > dollars on Iraqi's or whether we spend a tenth of that on
> our
>> > own
>> >> >> >> > people.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > (and yes, there are reports that elections are not
>> >> >> >> >> > particularly
>> >> > fair
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> >> >> > LA.)
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Then why did you bring up your feeling that the people of
>> > Louisiana
>> >> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> >> somehow downtrodden in a way that Mississippians aren't?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Your question is nonsensical.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Obviously you don't have an answer then.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > No, your question is nonsensical in this context. Your question
>> > might
>> >> > be
>> >> >> > more appropriate in context with the US Attorneys firings that
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > in
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > news.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> >> > techniques...If
>> >> >> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> >> >> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>> >> >>
>> >> > Then suppose you detail that relevance for us?
>> >>
>> >> That's what I was asking you to do.
>> >>
>> > Let's see - you want *me* to explain the relelavance of *your*
> response?!
>> > That's the sort of thing Conklin does.
>>
>> No, I want you to explain why you think your feeling that the people of
> New
>> Orleans are somehow uniquely downtrodden has anything to do with the
>> topic
>> of this threat or even this forum as a whole. And as an aside, do you
> have
>> any direct experience of the area that was hit by Katrina to base your
>> reaction on?
>>
> "Feeling that the people of New Orleans are somehow uniquely downtrodden"
> are YOUR words - YOU explain them.
Well, you seem to think that there is something in national policy that is
holding back the New Orleans area, yet the Mississippi Gulf Coast is _not_
being held back. So, if that is not a function of _local_ leadership, the
logical conclusion is that you believe that there is a national policy that
somehow applies to New Orleans but not in Mississippi.
"Most of the people there CANNOT help themselves - the System has made sure
of that -- and Continues to make sure of that." as you said.
What is it about "the System" that is making sure the people of New Orleans
"CANNOT" help themselves, yet is not even remotely preventing the people of
Mississippi from helping themselves?
And, you never answered my question...have you ever actually *been* to the
storm-affected area, either before or after Katrina? If not, don't you
think the eye-witness account of an actual resident might have some sort of
weight?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 16:33:36
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:tYaUh.3731$254.511@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
> news:13220h5ibjmjl68@corp.supernews.com...
>>
> > "Feeling that the people of New Orleans are somehow uniquely
downtrodden"
> > are YOUR words - YOU explain them.
>
> Well, you seem to think that there is something in national policy that is
> holding back the New Orleans area, yet the Mississippi Gulf Coast is _not_
> being held back.
Your facts are wrong. Mississipi Coast is also in dire need of funds. They
are as bad off as New Orleans.
>
> And, you never answered my question...have you ever actually *been* to the
> storm-affected area, either before or after Katrina? If not, don't you
> think the eye-witness account of an actual resident might have some sort
of
> weight?
>
There's a lot of stories coming out of the area. What makes yours better
than the rest?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 21:53:41
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:1322p999iajid0c@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:tYaUh.3731$254.511@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:13220h5ibjmjl68@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>> > "Feeling that the people of New Orleans are somehow uniquely
> downtrodden"
>> > are YOUR words - YOU explain them.
>>
>> Well, you seem to think that there is something in national policy that
>> is
>> holding back the New Orleans area, yet the Mississippi Gulf Coast is
>> _not_
>> being held back.
>
> Your facts are wrong. Mississipi Coast is also in dire need of funds.
> They
> are as bad off as New Orleans.
>
>>
>> And, you never answered my question...have you ever actually *been* to
>> the
>> storm-affected area, either before or after Katrina? If not, don't you
>> think the eye-witness account of an actual resident might have some sort
> of
>> weight?
>>
> There's a lot of stories coming out of the area. What makes yours better
> than the rest?
Because I have direct experience of the area, and I'm in a position to
judge. Obviously you haven't actually experienced either area, either
before or after the storm. You shouldn't just swallow whatever the news
services choose to focus on, but should find out for yourself.
Besides, it's not just a "story." If the system really were keeping people
down and not _local_ leadership, how do you account for the variation in how
different localities have recovered?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 18:03:15
From: Scott M. Kozel
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
>
> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
no need to be polite.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:14:27
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:461C09A3.1C2DECF4@comcast.net...
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >
> > I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
techniques...If
> > someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> > comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>
> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> no need to be polite.
If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here posting
stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 22:32:34
From: Scott M. Kozel
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable techniques...If
> > > someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> > > comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
> >
> > Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> > posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> > no need to be polite.
>
> If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here posting
> stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.
P-K-B. That's about what -you- do, Leroy.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 11:25:11
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:461C48C2.D34356F8@comcast.net...
> "Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> > > techniques...If
>> > > someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> > > comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>> >
>> > Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> > posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> > no need to be polite.
>>
>> If George was really tired of those "arguments", he wouldn't be here
>> posting
>> stuff that is 60% gibberish, 35% lies, and 5% opinion.
>
> P-K-B. That's about what -you- do, Leroy.
That's for sure. From a man whose job used to be cutting down our
forests, but seems unemployed now.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:24:08
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message
news:rA3Th.21575$tD2.6655@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> That's for sure. From a man whose job used to be cutting down our
> forests,
What do you gain from lies like this, georgie porgie? You've been told
again and again that I've not cut a single tree in any of our forests.
>but seems unemployed now.
>
I'm supposed to be retired - but I have my own company and am working harder
than ever -- or at least it seems that way. Next time you get nailed by one
of those radar speed signs, think of me.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 22:19:58
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:461C09A3.1C2DECF4@comcast.net...
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>>
>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> techniques...If
>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>
> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> no need to be polite.
It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research ever
can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say, "You
already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they were
riding.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 18:29:07
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message
news:i4USh.1723$3P3.850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:461C09A3.1C2DECF4@comcast.net...
>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>>> techniques...If
>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>>
>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> no need to be polite.
>
> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research ever
> can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say, "You
> already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they were
> riding.
Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 00:00:22
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:X4VSh.576$Wm.19@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
> news:i4USh.1723$3P3.850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:461C09A3.1C2DECF4@comcast.net...
>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>>>> techniques...If
>>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>>>
>>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>>> no need to be polite.
>>
>> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they
>> were riding.
>
> Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>
You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 21:06:50
From: Scott M. Kozel
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote:
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
> > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote
> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote
> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> >>>> techniques...If
> >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
> >>>
> >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> >>> no need to be polite.
> >>
> >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
> >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
> >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
> >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they
> >> were riding.
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>
> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Apr 2007 11:23:41
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:461C34AA.582675D@comcast.net...
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
>> > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote
>> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> >>>> techniques...If
>> >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> >>> no need to be polite.
>> >>
>> >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>> >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>> >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>> >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
>> >> they
>> >> were riding.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>>
>> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
>
> She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.
Real research takes time. Planners don't do research. They just have
policies. It is really sad.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 23:52:33
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:461C34AA.582675D@comcast.net...
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
>> > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote
>> >> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote
>> >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>> >>>> techniques...If
>> >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>> >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>> >>>
>> >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>> >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>> >>> no need to be polite.
>> >>
>> >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>> >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>> >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>> >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
>> >> they
>> >> were riding.
>> >
>> > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>>
>> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
>
> She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.
Ooh, a man with a gift for restatement. I like (not).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:18:18
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:461C34AA.582675D@comcast.net...
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote
> > > "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote
> > >> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote
> > >>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
> > >>>> techniques...If
> > >>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
> > >>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
> > >>>
> > >>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
> > >>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
> > >>> no need to be polite.
> > >>
> > >> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
> > >> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look
at
> > >> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
> > >> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse
they
> > >> were riding.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
> >
> > You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
>
> She just can't stand refereed sources over her own emotional outbursts.
She's noticed that Conklin's "refereed source" don't say what he claims they
say.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 19:41:38
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message
news:qyVSh.136303$_73.27057@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:X4VSh.576$Wm.19@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:i4USh.1723$3P3.850@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:461C09A3.1C2DECF4@comcast.net...
>>>> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see you've learned one of George Conklin's less admirable
>>>>> techniques...If
>>>>> someone disagrees with you or questions you further, declare the
>>>>> comment/question irrelevant, drivel, or nonsensical. Nice :-)
>>>>
>>>> Because George is tired of seeing the same refuted arguments
>>>> posted over and over again. After a certain point there is
>>>> no need to be polite.
>>>
>>> It is like talking to religious fanatics. No amount of good research
>>> ever can change beliefs, espeically when no one even bother to look at
>>> probability and risk. If you post a refereed article, they just say,
>>> "You already posted that." After that, they back to whatever horse they
>>> were riding.
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly how it feels to try to debate with you.
>>
>
> You just can't stand refereed sources over your own sad emotions.
You as well...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 20:05:57
From: nash
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Baxter" <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote in message
news:131fqre1dn63d80@corp.supernews.com...
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:50ERh.28992$_a1.28425@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some
>> sort
>> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
>> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
> attention.
>> Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely
> wiped
>> off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of
> some
>> sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
>> the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get
> back
>> to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New
> Orleans
>> chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
>> failed them so badly in power.
>>
> Why is it we can spend $100 Billion on building Iraq, but not $2 billion
> on
> our own nation?
>
>
Bush has a guilty conscience
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 11:59:49
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:50ERh.28992$_a1.28425@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:xOyRh.1596$zC.1358@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> > donquijote1954 wrote:
> >>
> >> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
> >> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
> >>
> >> For example:
> >>
> >> (this is serious)
> >>
> >> 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
> >> in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
> >> also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
> >> nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
> >> we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
> >> rights, and humanitarian relief.'
> >
> > No shit. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
> > Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
> > We have no REAL partnerships because they will shit on us and change
sides
> > as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is way
> > overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put you
out
> > of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our money.
> > Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
> > Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
> > Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
> > appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
> > home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.
>
> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
attention.
> Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely
wiped
> off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of
some
> sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
> the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get
back
> to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New
Orleans
> chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
> failed them so badly in power.
>
You mean living below sea level has nothing to do with floods? ha Ha HA.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 17:32:11
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:VILRh.512$3P3.163@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:50ERh.28992$_a1.28425@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:xOyRh.1596$zC.1358@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> > donquijote1954 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You even find them in the environmental movement, feeding the hungry
>> >> children in Timbuktu and in the promotion of democracy for Iraq... ;)
>> >>
>> >> For example:
>> >>
>> >> (this is serious)
>> >>
>> >> 'For the Bush administration, democracy promotion is not just a "made
>> >> in the U.S." venture, but a goal shared with many other countries. We
>> >> also seek to broaden our partnerships with local and global
>> >> nongovernmental organizations and international organizations, so that
>> >> we can work together on democracy promotion, advancement of human
>> >> rights, and humanitarian relief.'
>> >
>> > No shit. Bush seems to think he can blow smoke up everybodies ass.
>> > Other countries share the goal of not having to listen to American B.S.
>> > We have no REAL partnerships because they will shit on us and change
> sides
>> > as soon as it is to their advantage. 'Partner' is a word that is way
>> > overused in business. Your 'partner' can switch overnight and put you
> out
>> > of business. China is not a partner or friend but they love our money.
>> > Democracy promotion is reserved for those with oil for us.
>> > Advancement of human rights is just politician rhetoric.
>> > Humanitarian relief means sending our money to a country that does not
>> > appreciate it, all for a news byte, and while ignoring the problems at
>> > home, like New Orleans, the homeless in OUR country, etc.
>>
>> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some
>> sort
>> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
>> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
> attention.
>> Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were completely
> wiped
>> off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us as a symptom of
> some
>> sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that our leadership made
>> the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and get
> back
>> to work, whether or not there was any aid at the federal level. New
> Orleans
>> chose a different path--even worse, they chose to keep the mayor who'd
>> failed them so badly in power.
>>
>
> You mean living below sea level has nothing to do with floods? ha Ha HA.
If the national government had refused to put up the levees to support the
local decision to build there, the criticism would have been 10 times worse.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 20:54:01
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:50ERh.28992$_a1.28425@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> I get really tired of people talking about New Orleans like it's some sort
> of failure of national policy. The problem in NO is local leadership and
> the helpless mentality of the New Orleans residents who get media
> attention. Mississippi had it worse if anything (whole towns here were
> completely wiped off the map), but you don't hear people referring to us
> as a symptom of some sort of national malaise. And the reason why is that
> our leadership made the decision that we would pick ourselves up by our
> bootstraps and get back to work, whether or not there was any aid at the
> federal level. New Orleans chose a different path--even worse, they chose
> to keep the mayor who'd failed them so badly in power.
Damned freaking straight, sister. Well put.
Bill S.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 12:58:49
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be solved?
>
> I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in the
> past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real problems
> since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a carefully-constructed
> lie.-
What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
unplanned and stupid? Have you seen anything unplanned that produces
the intended results, or you couldn't care less about the results, and
you just want to go against common sense?
Do you realize we are upwards of 6 billion and growing, or do you plan
(see the need for the word?) to wipe out half of humanity to make room
for you chaotic, stupid and unplanned growth?
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:07:53
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
solved?
> >
> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in
the
> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real problems
> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
carefully-constructed
> > lie.-
>
> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
> unplanned and stupid?
St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by idiots
who lie to us.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 18:01:44
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
> solved?
>> >
>> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing in
> the
>> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real
>> > problems
>> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
> carefully-constructed
>> > lie.-
>>
>> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
>> unplanned and stupid?
>
> St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by idiots
> who lie to us.
Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have at
least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to advocate some
sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than doing nothing)? If
you can't do that, then you're just someone who can't be bothered to do the
work himself but spends his time criticizing those who do.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 16:58:40
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have at
> least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to advocate some
> sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than doing nothing)?
You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "St
Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
alleged problems.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 20:22:06
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46158d31$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
>> at least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to
>> advocate some sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than
>> doing nothing)?
>
> You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "St
> Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
> conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
> alleged problems.
Yes they have tried to solve problems. All development methods have had
instances where there were poor outcomes and been insensitive to the needs
of the people, and many of these methods in other places have had good
outcomes and were loved by the people. Because you can point to one bad
example that was called St Growth (and in practice seems to have been its
antithesis) does not mean that the philosophies of St Growth are wrong,
any more than a single St Growth development that works well is proof
that it is the answer in all situations.
Regardless, I am not defending St Growth in this line of questioning. I
am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who would
like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult a
question for George (and apparently you) to understand.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:35:17
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:1chRh.39187$5i7.16649@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46158d31$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
> >
> >> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
have
> >> at least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to
> >> advocate some sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than
> >> doing nothing)?
> >
> > You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "St
> > Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
> > conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
> > alleged problems.
>
> Yes they have tried to solve problems.
Developers have tried to solve THEIR problems: how to put more housing on
less land and get YOU to believe they are doing it to help the world.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 08:02:37
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:VfqRh.94$3P3.88@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:1chRh.39187$5i7.16649@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46158d31$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
> have
>> >> at least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to
>> >> advocate some sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than
>> >> doing nothing)?
>> >
>> > You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "St
>> > Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
>> > conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
>> > alleged problems.
>>
>> Yes they have tried to solve problems.
>
> Developers have tried to solve THEIR problems: how to put more housing
> on
> less land and get YOU to believe they are doing it to help the world.
Odd that you think it's ok for developers to solve THEIR problems in a way
that others don't agree helps the community when you call it sprawl.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:04:26
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> Regardless, I am not defending St Growth in this line of questioning. I
> am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who would
> like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult a
> question for George (and apparently you) to understand.
Many communities don't need any more planning. What's happened is that
appropriate zoning is changed because developers always want to use land
for the most profitable use at each moment, rather than keep the current
zoning. During the dotcom boom, they wanted to convert industrial to
commercial. After the dotcom bust they wanted to convert the commercial
to high-density residential. These conversions are bad because they
upset the balance of different uses and hurt tax revenue. For example,
an owner of a shopping center intentionally forces out retailers by
raising the rents and letting the center deteriorate. Once the shopping
center is mostly empty they go to the city council and planning
commission and claim that the center is obsolete, unleasable, etc., and
that they should be allowed to tear it down to build condos. They
promise a coffee house and dry cleaner on the bottom level, and proclaim
their plan as "St Growth." The revenue generated by residential
property tax doesn't cover the cost of services, so they put bond
measures and parcel taxes on the ballot to pay for this "St Growth."
In my city, the developers and their politicians recently spent $100,000
to fund a study over what should be done with a large parcel of
industrial/commercial land in our city. The developers desperately want
to tear down all the buildings, most of them currently leased out, and
build condos. They invited citizens to serve on the panel, but
deliberately excluded everyone that's been fighting high-density
housing, which is more than 2/3 of the city. People showed up at the
meeting to voice their displeasure, but when the results of the study
are released, there will be a big push for high-density housing, under
the mantra of "St Growth."
"St Growth" has become a code word for undesirable development. The
developers and politicians better coin a new phrase soon.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 08:01:04
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:4615c6cc$0$27155$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Regardless, I am not defending St Growth in this line of questioning.
>> I am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who
>> would like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult
>> a question for George (and apparently you) to understand.
>
> Many communities don't need any more planning. What's happened is that
> appropriate zoning is changed because developers always want to use land
> for the most profitable use at each moment, rather than keep the current
> zoning. During the dotcom boom, they wanted to convert industrial to
> commercial. After the dotcom bust they wanted to convert the commercial to
> high-density residential. These conversions are bad because they upset the
> balance of different uses and hurt tax revenue.
So in other words the previous plan is not being adhered to. I think you're
off base about the reason why, though. In our area, the rezoning requests
are usually granted because they will result in an increase of tax revenue,
at least short term.
> For example, an owner of a shopping center intentionally forces out
> retailers by raising the rents and letting the center deteriorate. Once
> the shopping center is mostly empty they go to the city council and
> planning commission and claim that the center is obsolete, unleasable,
> etc., and that they should be allowed to tear it down to build condos.
> They promise a coffee house and dry cleaner on the bottom level, and
> proclaim their plan as "St Growth." The revenue generated by
> residential property tax doesn't cover the cost of services, so they put
> bond measures and parcel taxes on the ballot to pay for this "St
> Growth."
I would think that what actually hurts the tax base is the practice of
intentionally allowing structures to deteriorate. This is the opposite of
St Growth.
> In my city, the developers and their politicians recently spent $100,000
> to fund a study over what should be done with a large parcel of
> industrial/commercial land in our city. The developers desperately want to
> tear down all the buildings, most of them currently leased out, and build
> condos. They invited citizens to serve on the panel, but deliberately
> excluded everyone that's been fighting high-density housing, which is more
> than 2/3 of the city. People showed up at the meeting to voice their
> displeasure, but when the results of the study are released, there will be
> a big push for high-density housing, under the mantra of "St Growth."
You continually point to your own town as the be-all and end-all of what
St Growth has the potential to be, while everything you say about what
happened indicates that they used the "St Growth" label without actually
employing any St Growth principles.
> "St Growth" has become a code word for undesirable development. The
> developers and politicians better coin a new phrase soon.
In your area, that label has been applied to something undesirable,
absolutely.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 09:19:01
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> So in other words the previous plan is not being adhered to. I think you're
> off base about the reason why, though. In our area, the rezoning requests
> are usually granted because they will result in an increase of tax revenue,
> at least short term.
All taxes are not the same. The rezoning will usually result in
increased property tax revenue, but less long term revenue than if the
land was used for retail, commercial, and industrial. There may be a
short term gain, especially if the landowner has gotten rid of all their
tenants in an effort to get the rezoning, effectively reducing the
sales and use taxes to zero. Just the realization that they have a good
chance at rezoning will get them started evicting businesses, which has
a negative tax consequence. If the rezoning attempt fails, then they
have to renovate the commercial space and try to lease it out again.
> I would think that what actually hurts the tax base is the practice of
> intentionally allowing structures to deteriorate. This is the opposite of
> St Growth.
They let the structures deteriorate because of the promise of being able
to tear them down and get the land rezoned for a more profitable use.
In that sense, "St Growth" is driving the deterioration. This isn't
fantasy, we see this tactic being used in my area. It's safe to say that
the landowners, the developers, and the city planners were astounded
that their rezoning attempt could be derailed by the citizens, nothing
like that had ever happened before, the developers had always been able
to spend enough money to soundly defeat any citizens group.
> You continually point to your own town as the be-all and end-all of what
> St Growth has the potential to be,
If I look one city over, their "St Growth" approach is different, but
equally bad. They've decided to slowly evict all lower income residents,
by allowing relatively inexpensive apartment complexes to be converted
to high cost condominiums (called mixed use, but it's essentially condos
with a couple of stores, that never are successful, on the bottom),
either by renovation or by remove and replace. So they're systematically
driving out the working class (mainly Hispanic) and replacing them with
higher income Asians and Caucasians. They've also allowed major rezoning
of commercial and industrial to residential, adding tens of thousands of
new housing units.
They have a relatively bad school system, so no one with kids wants to
move to that city, they even tore down the only high school to build
more condos, and bussed the few remaining kids over to the school in the
next city. The same company that tried to sell their land in my city,
successfully sold an old mall that they had converted to offices, and
got the property rezoned for "mixed use," so a high density housing
development will go in there as well. One difference, however, is that
this neighboring city does have mass transit, both commuter rail and
light rail, so at least there is an option for transit other than driving.
while everything you say about what
> happened indicates that they used the "St Growth" label without actually
> employing any St Growth principles.
Of course they claim to adhere to the "St Growth" principles. The
problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are going
to be the fallout of "St Growth."
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 12:18:08
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <461672f7$0$27194$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
> > So in other words the previous plan is not being adhered to. I
> > think you're off base about the reason why, though. In our area,
> > the rezoning requests are usually granted because they will result
> > in an increase of tax revenue, at least short term.
>
> All taxes are not the same. The rezoning will usually result in
> increased property tax revenue, but less long term revenue than if
> the land was used for retail, commercial, and industrial. There may
> be a short term gain, especially if the landowner has gotten rid of
> all their tenants in an effort to get the rezoning, effectively
> reducing the sales and use taxes to zero. Just the realization that
> they have a good chance at rezoning will get them started evicting
> businesses, which has a negative tax consequence. If the rezoning
> attempt fails, then they have to renovate the commercial space and
> try to lease it out again.
>
> > I would think that what actually hurts the tax base is the practice
> > of intentionally allowing structures to deteriorate. This is the
> > opposite of St Growth.
>
> They let the structures deteriorate because of the promise of being
> able to tear them down and get the land rezoned for a more profitable
> use. In that sense, "St Growth" is driving the deterioration. This
> isn't fantasy, we see this tactic being used in my area. It's safe to
> say that the landowners, the developers, and the city planners were
> astounded that their rezoning attempt could be derailed by the
> citizens, nothing like that had ever happened before, the developers
> had always been able to spend enough money to soundly defeat any
> citizens group.
>
> > You continually point to your own town as the be-all and end-all of
> > what St Growth has the potential to be,
>
> If I look one city over, their "St Growth" approach is different,
> but equally bad. They've decided to slowly evict all lower income
> residents, by allowing relatively inexpensive apartment complexes to
> be converted to high cost condominiums (called mixed use, but it's
> essentially condos with a couple of stores, that never are
> successful, on the bottom), either by renovation or by remove and
> replace. So they're systematically driving out the working class
> (mainly Hispanic) and replacing them with higher income Asians and
> Caucasians. They've also allowed major rezoning of commercial and
> industrial to residential, adding tens of thousands of new housing
> units.
In cities that's called "gentrification" and it is happening apace here.
The newly-childless boomers are moving into the city out of the suburbs,
selling their 7000 square foot McMansions on an acre of lawn to buy a
condo, townhouse or loft. Benefits include not having a 90 minute
commute, not having to spend an entire Saturday mowing the lawn, close
access to the amenities of the city, etc. But the lower middle class
and lower class are displaced.
> They have a relatively bad school system, so no one with kids wants
> to move to that city, they even tore down the only high school to
> build more condos, and bussed the few remaining kids over to the
> school in the next city. The same company that tried to sell their
> land in my city, successfully sold an old mall that they had
> converted to offices, and got the property rezoned for "mixed use,"
> so a high density housing development will go in there as well. One
> difference, however, is that this neighboring city does have mass
> transit, both commuter rail and light rail, so at least there is an
> option for transit other than driving.
>
> > while everything you say about what happened indicates that they
> > used the "St Growth" label without actually employing any St
> > Growth principles.
>
> Of course they claim to adhere to the "St Growth" principles. The
> problem is you can't live in a vacuum. The loss of retail, industry,
> jobs, and the increase in traffic and decrease in walkability are
> going to be the fallout of "St Growth."
Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
franchises. Bleccch. I'll live in town in my 100 year old house with
dozens of locally owned businesses within 10 blocks, thanks. 'Taint
perfect but it beats the hell out of the suburbs.
The forecast in our area is for a 25-40% increase in population by 2050.
Current trends (large lot suburbs) will result in an outer ring of
suburbs nearly 50 miles out from the center (it's already a 30 mile
radius). A 50 mile commute in an area that has no practical public
transit infrastructure and incredibly bad highway design is not my idea
of quality of life.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 10:38:48
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
Tim McNaa wrote:
> In cities that's called "gentrification" and it is happening apace here.
> The newly-childless boomers are moving into the city out of the suburbs,
> selling their 7000 square foot McMansions on an acre of lawn to buy a
> condo, townhouse or loft. Benefits include not having a 90 minute
> commute, not having to spend an entire Saturday mowing the lawn, close
> access to the amenities of the city, etc. But the lower middle class
> and lower class are displaced.
In an old Doonesbury comic, the question is asked, What happens to the
poor people displaced by gentrification? The answer more or less: Oh,
they move on to devalue other property making that ripe for subsequent
renewal.
> Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there are
> no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all the
> distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones and
> eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally blocks upon
> curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses that look more like
> barns than homes. Businesses are generally in unpleasant strip malls
> with cretinously designed parking lots and anonymous, homogenized
> franchises. Bleccch. I'll live in town in my 100 year old house with
> dozens of locally owned businesses within 10 blocks, thanks. 'Taint
> perfect but it beats the hell out of the suburbs.
Both the relatively old suburbs, and the very new suburbs are usually
walkable and bicycleable. I.e., from my 44 year old house I can walk to
about 50 restaurants in 20 minutes, and there are numerous biking
opportunities close by. It's the suburbs built in the seventies to the
nineties, far from the city center, that are usually not so walkable,
though if they were planned well there is local shopping and other
amenities nearby.
> The forecast in our area is for a 25-40% increase in population by 2050.
> Current trends (large lot suburbs) will result in an outer ring of
> suburbs nearly 50 miles out from the center (it's already a 30 mile
> radius). A 50 mile commute in an area that has no practical public
> transit infrastructure and incredibly bad highway design is not my idea
> of quality of life.
You're right, that commute distance is insane. But the solution is not
to make our current communities even more unwalkable and more
uncycleable by increasing congestion.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 15:22:45
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <461685aa$0$27191$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net >,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote:
> Tim McNaa wrote:
>
> > In cities that's called "gentrification" and it is happening apace
> > here. The newly-childless boomers are moving into the city out of
> > the suburbs, selling their 7000 square foot McMansions on an acre
> > of lawn to buy a condo, townhouse or loft. Benefits include not
> > having a 90 minute commute, not having to spend an entire Saturday
> > mowing the lawn, close access to the amenities of the city, etc.
> > But the lower middle class and lower class are displaced.
>
> In an old Doonesbury comic, the question is asked, What happens to
> the poor people displaced by gentrification? The answer more or less:
> Oh, they move on to devalue other property making that ripe for
> subsequent renewal.
I hadn't seen that strip, but there are some grains of truth there.
> > Our suburbs and exurbs are already unwalkable. In many cases there
> > are no sidewalks and you would have to walk in the street with all
> > the distracted soccer parents in SUVs talking on their cell phones
> > and eating fast food while driving. Neighborhoods are generally
> > blocks upon curvy blocks of nearly identical ticky-tacky houses
> > that look more like barns than homes. Businesses are generally in
> > unpleasant strip malls with cretinously designed parking lots and
> > anonymous, homogenized franchises. Bleccch. I'll live in town in
> > my 100 year old house with dozens of locally owned businesses
> > within 10 blocks, thanks. 'Taint perfect but it beats the hell out
> > of the suburbs.
>
> Both the relatively old suburbs, and the very new suburbs are usually
> walkable and bicycleable. I.e., from my 44 year old house I can walk
> to about 50 restaurants in 20 minutes, and there are numerous biking
> opportunities close by. It's the suburbs built in the seventies to
> the nineties, far from the city center, that are usually not so
> walkable, though if they were planned well there is local shopping
> and other amenities nearby.
The newest suburbs here haven't followed suit, from what I've seen (but
then, I have not spent a lot of time looking in the ones built in the
past two or three years). The goal of the newest suburbs is to create a
faux rural feel without being *too* far from the big box stores.
I grew up in an older suburb of Chicago- Elmhurst. It was very walkable
and pleasant. Where my Mom lives, I could live without using a car for
weeks at a time. When I visit, often I don't drive for the entire week.
It's four blocks to the grocery store, five blocks to the downtown
business section. I walked to school every day (1/4 mile in grade
school, <1 mile in junior high school and high school) until I got too
cool for that in high school and bummed rides from my friends. :-P I
walked or rode my bike to see my friends and vice versa. I didn't even
get a driver's license until I was 19.
> > The forecast in our area is for a 25-40% increase in population by
> > 2050. Current trends (large lot suburbs) will result in an outer
> > ring of suburbs nearly 50 miles out from the center (it's already a
> > 30 mile radius). A 50 mile commute in an area that has no
> > practical public transit infrastructure and incredibly bad highway
> > design is not my idea of quality of life.
>
> You're right, that commute distance is insane. But the solution is
> not to make our current communities even more unwalkable and more
> uncycleable by increasing congestion.
I wish I knew the solution, I could package it and sell it to major
metropolitan areas and make a tidy fortune. Seems to me that there are
just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
life.
When I was a kid growing up, each suburb had its own center with a
distinct full-service business district. Lots of locally owned
businesses and it was rare that you couldn't get what you needed without
leaving town. That meant that there were a lot of jobs in town, too,
although a lot of people in my home town commuted into Chicago for work.
For my Dad's entire working life, he never had a commute to work longer
than two miles. My Mom's commute was 1 1/2 miles.
By comparison, I work in two locations a day, with commutes ranging from
.9 miles to 30 miles.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 20:39:20
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message news:timmcn->
. Seems to me that there are
> just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
> right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
> sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
> density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
> infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
> life.
>
All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it up
boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the people
will move to the few areas where growth is happening. But stop worrying
about it. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style apartment building and
remember that what St Growth now calls good development was at one time
condemned as bad.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 21:14:38
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <YdyRh.245$3P3.135@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
> "Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message news:timmcn->
>
> > Seems to me that there are just too many people, who all have to
> > live somewhere and have as much right to good housing as I have.
> > There's no perfect solution- allow sprawl and spend trillions of
> > dollars subsidizing cars. Increase density and get the problems of
> > crowding- increased crime, pummeled infrastructure, and a tendency
> > towards a bleaker and more aggressive life.
> >
> All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it
> up boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> people will move to the few areas where growth is happening.
That's one of those statistics that follows lies and damned lies.
> But stop worrying about it.
It's worth worrying about if you live in one of those places people are
moving to, and it's worth worrying about if you live in one of those
places people are moving from.
> Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style apartment building and
> remember that what St Growth now calls good development was at one
> time condemned as bad.
It's inevitable as cities grow. Density will increase and with that
comes urban gulags. But there are ways to avoid the "vertical ghettos"
syndrome (I grew up near Chicago, and the failings of the housing
projects is vivid even though I didn't live near them. Having to
occasionally go down into those areas for work was like entering another
world a horrible one of bleak concrete and harsh light, of filth and
despair). I think cooperative housing is a better notion than
traditional apartment buildings. Personal investment and some type of
ownership of one's home encourage pro-social behavior.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 19:05:58
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <timmcn-B7C35E.21143806042007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>
>despair). I think cooperative housing is a better notion than
>traditional apartment buildings. Personal investment and some type of
>ownership of one's home encourage pro-social behavior.
The problem is that "pro-social behavior" ends up being defined as
"behaving as the tinpot dictators on the co-op board want you to
behave".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 11:58:24
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-B7C35E.21143806042007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <YdyRh.245$3P3.135@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message news:timmcn->
> >
> > > Seems to me that there are just too many people, who all have to
> > > live somewhere and have as much right to good housing as I have.
> > > There's no perfect solution- allow sprawl and spend trillions of
> > > dollars subsidizing cars. Increase density and get the problems of
> > > crowding- increased crime, pummeled infrastructure, and a tendency
> > > towards a bleaker and more aggressive life.
> > >
> > All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give it
> > up boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> > people will move to the few areas where growth is happening.
>
> That's one of those statistics that follows lies and damned lies.
>
You mean Atlanda is also not growing while Buffalo is shrinking? Can't
deal with reality can you?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 16:42:02
From: William O'Hara
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in
news:YdyRh.245$3P3.135@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message news:timmcn->
>
> . Seems to me that there are
>> just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
>> right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
>> sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
>> density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
>> infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
>> life.
>>
> All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give
> it up
> boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> people will move to the few areas where growth is happening. But stop
> worrying about it. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style
> apartment building and remember that what St Growth now calls good
> development was at one time condemned as bad.
My community has very similar issues as previously mentioned by other
posters. I am in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Throughout the 20's &
30's Plymouth was the worse county in Massachusetts. Now, it is adding
population while some of the other counties are losing population.
St Growth over here means providing tax incentives to a developer that
sells a condo for $750k! It doesn't make much sense. They got a deal in
Norfolk County for a developer because the property was across the street
from a train station. However, the train station is completely fenced
off from the street. you have to use the INTERSTATE to get to the
entrance of the station and this requires at least five or six miles of
driving.
"St Growth" is a boondoggle in my area, which is manipulated by
developers and selectmen that have no clue.
Our real issue is that we have TOO many towns in Massachusetts. They are
too small to serve their population base and they are too small to allow
people to actually vote on things that effect their lives such as
traffic, water issues, sewer issues, and noise issues.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 22:30:41
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"William O'Hara" <whoohara@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns990AB41804C91KB1IUB223223n1eyLOCK@216.196.97.136...
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:YdyRh.245$3P3.135@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > "Tim McNaa" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message news:timmcn->
> >
> > . Seems to me that there are
> >> just too many people, who all have to live somewhere and have as much
> >> right to good housing as I have. There's no perfect solution- allow
> >> sprawl and spend trillions of dollars subsidizing cars. Increase
> >> density and get the problems of crowding- increased crime, pummeled
> >> infrastructure, and a tendency towards a bleaker and more aggressive
> >> life.
> >>
> > All the gloom and doom posted here does NOT reflect reality. Give
> > it up
> > boys...half the counties in the USA are losing population and the
> > people will move to the few areas where growth is happening. But stop
> > worrying about it. Just don't put everyone in a Russian-style
> > apartment building and remember that what St Growth now calls good
> > development was at one time condemned as bad.
>
> My community has very similar issues as previously mentioned by other
> posters. I am in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Throughout the 20's &
> 30's Plymouth was the worse county in Massachusetts. Now, it is adding
> population while some of the other counties are losing population.
>
>
> St Growth over here means providing tax incentives to a developer that
> sells a condo for $750k! It doesn't make much sense.
Yes it does. St Growth is a developer-sponsored ripoff.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:37:24
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:4615c6cc$0$27155$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
> > Regardless, I am not defending St Growth in this line of questioning.
I
> > am simply asking what alternatives there are to look at for people who
would
> > like to plan their communities. This seems to be far too difficult a
> > question for George (and apparently you) to understand.
>
> Many communities don't need any more planning. What's happened is that
> appropriate zoning is changed because developers always want to use land
> for the most profitable use at each moment, rather than keep the current
> zoning.
100% correct. Then they proclaim that they are making the world a better
place as long as they can make more money. Planners go right along with
them. I wonder how much money really changes hands under the table for such
recommendations.
During the dotcom boom, they wanted to convert industrial to
> commercial. After the dotcom bust they wanted to convert the commercial
> to high-density residential. These conversions are bad because they
> upset the balance of different uses and hurt tax revenue. For example,
> an owner of a shopping center intentionally forces out retailers by
> raising the rents and letting the center deteriorate. Once the shopping
> center is mostly empty they go to the city council and planning
> commission and claim that the center is obsolete, unleasable, etc., and
> that they should be allowed to tear it down to build condos. They
> promise a coffee house and dry cleaner on the bottom level, and proclaim
> their plan as "St Growth." The revenue generated by residential
> property tax doesn't cover the cost of services, so they put bond
> measures and parcel taxes on the ballot to pay for this "St Growth."
>
> In my city, the developers and their politicians recently spent $100,000
> to fund a study over what should be done with a large parcel of
> industrial/commercial land in our city. The developers desperately want
> to tear down all the buildings, most of them currently leased out, and
> build condos. They invited citizens to serve on the panel, but
> deliberately excluded everyone that's been fighting high-density
> housing, which is more than 2/3 of the city. People showed up at the
> meeting to voice their displeasure, but when the results of the study
> are released, there will be a big push for high-density housing, under
> the mantra of "St Growth."
>
> "St Growth" has become a code word for undesirable development. The
> developers and politicians better coin a new phrase soon.
As long as the only thing the APA will look at is more and more housing
on less and less land, everyone involved in the process is happy. Only the
public gets had.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 08:48:28
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
George Conklin wrote:
> 100% correct. Then they proclaim that they are making the world a better
> place as long as they can make more money. Planners go right along with
> them. I wonder how much money really changes hands under the table for such
> recommendations.
It goes even beyond the planners and the developers. It goes to
corporations that, rather than make money providing a product or
service, decide to sell some real property every quarter in order to
boost their profits.
One of the deals we stopped in my city, involved a large corporation
trying to sell land to a developer. This corporation is doing the same
thing all over the country. They report good financial results, but a
large part of the results are the profits from land sales, rather than
from the sale of products and services. They recently sold a large
private campground in the mountains, one that they had owned for
decades, where employees and guests could go for camping, hiking, etc.
The employees (and retirees) were devastated by this sale, but the
company is no longer employee-centric, that disappeared when the
founders lost control. They sold all their recreation sites around the
world for a one-time financial gain.
The land they own could be used for retail, and some retailers are
interested, but the land is worth less as a retail site than as a site
for housing, hence the effort to get it rezoned. The company has
proclaimed that they will not sell the land to a retailer, even though
the city desperately needs land for more sales-tax generating retail.
Suffice it to say that the city's planning department is furious with
the residents for quashing their rezoning efforts. It's a badge of honor
to us.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 00:19:05
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46158d31$0$27218$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>
> > Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
at
> > least tried to come up with solutions to problems, you have to advocate
some
> > sort of solution yourself as an alternative (other than doing nothing)?
>
> You don't have to have a solution to know what doesn't work. The "St
> Growth" people have NOT tried to come up with solutions. The developers
> conned them into believing that these developments will solve all these
> alleged problems.
The developers simply used to wanted to build houses. Now they say they are
solving social problems by building houses!!! Really. Every time. Just
say, "St Growth," and you have a winner!!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:06:27
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:gdfRh.28409$_a1.5282@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
> > solved?
> >> >
> >> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing
in
> > the
> >> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real
> >> > problems
> >> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
> > carefully-constructed
> >> > lie.-
> >>
> >> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
> >> unplanned and stupid?
> >
> > St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
idiots
> > who lie to us.
>
> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
at
> least tried to come up with solutions to problems,
You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
problem. St Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed. In
fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did in
the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
increments. It is harmed by ideologies like St Growth.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 18:33:10
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:ThfRh.21398$Jl.20148@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:gdfRh.28409$_a1.5282@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should be
>> > solved?
>> >> >
>> >> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family housing
> in
>> > the
>> >> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real
>> >> > problems
>> >> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
>> > carefully-constructed
>> >> > lie.-
>> >>
>> >> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
>> >> unplanned and stupid?
>> >
>> > St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
> idiots
>> > who lie to us.
>>
>> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who have
> at
>> least tried to come up with solutions to problems,
>
> You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
> problem. St Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed. In
> fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did in
> the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
> increments. It is harmed by ideologies like St Growth.
St Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky dorey
with unplanned growth as you like to pretend. "The development of the last
50 years" is NOT a school of thought. I asked you for a school of thought.
Are you completely unable to formulate a reply to a simple question? Hint:
the answer to that one will be either yes or no. If no, you should provide
the requested school of thought.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 23:59:34
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:KGfRh.28429$_a1.8676@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ThfRh.21398$Jl.20148@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:gdfRh.28409$_a1.5282@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should
be
> >> > solved?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family
housing
> > in
> >> > the
> >> >> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real
> >> >> > problems
> >> >> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
> >> > carefully-constructed
> >> >> > lie.-
> >> >>
> >> >> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned,
versus
> >> >> unplanned and stupid?
> >> >
> >> > St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
> > idiots
> >> > who lie to us.
> >>
> >> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
have
> > at
> >> least tried to come up with solutions to problems,
> >
> > You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
> > problem. St Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed.
In
> > fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did
in
> > the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
> > increments. It is harmed by ideologies like St Growth.
>
> St Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky dorey
> with unplanned growth as you like to pretend.
Critics have always had vague hates and need something to pin it on.
Happy people don't look for things to moan about, as in happy single-family
homeowner.
"The development of the last
> 50 years" is NOT a school of thought.
The critics have always had the same rant. They just love what happened
in the past, so they can criticize the present. As you do. Happy people
don't complain all the time.
I suggest again the book "Sprawl: A Compact History" to see how the
critics constantly change what they say to make the past seem good and the
future bad. The vocabulary you spout is about 150 years old. It is a
negative approach, and the rest of the world goes about its way ignorning
naysayers. Happy people don't develop and ideology like you demand.
Unhappy people do. Why are you so unhappy?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 20:17:47
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:G3gRh.18717$PL.2393@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:KGfRh.28429$_a1.8676@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:ThfRh.21398$Jl.20148@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:gdfRh.28409$_a1.5282@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it should
> be
>> >> > solved?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family
> housing
>> > in
>> >> > the
>> >> >> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real
>> >> >> > problems
>> >> >> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
>> >> > carefully-constructed
>> >> >> > lie.-
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned,
> versus
>> >> >> unplanned and stupid?
>> >> >
>> >> > St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
>> > idiots
>> >> > who lie to us.
>> >>
>> >> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
> have
>> > at
>> >> least tried to come up with solutions to problems,
>> >
>> > You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT a
>> > problem. St Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed.
> In
>> > fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they did
> in
>> > the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made by
>> > increments. It is harmed by ideologies like St Growth.
>>
>> St Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky
>> dorey
>> with unplanned growth as you like to pretend.
>
> Critics have always had vague hates and need something to pin it on.
> Happy people don't look for things to moan about, as in happy
> single-family
> homeowner.
I suppose that's why you're so critical of those who think things could be
improved.
> "The development of the last
>> 50 years" is NOT a school of thought.
>
> The critics have always had the same rant. They just love what happened
> in the past, so they can criticize the present. As you do. Happy people
> don't complain all the time.
Then you should quit complaining that people on a forum called
alt.planning.urban want to discuss urban planning. If you have nothing to
add to the discussion of the topic this was set up to discuss, why are you
even here?
> I suggest again the book "Sprawl: A Compact History" to see how the
> critics constantly change what they say to make the past seem good and the
> future bad. The vocabulary you spout is about 150 years old. It is a
> negative approach, and the rest of the world goes about its way ignorning
> naysayers. Happy people don't develop and ideology like you demand.
> Unhappy people do. Why are you so unhappy?
What vocabulary? I simply asked you to point out a different school of
thought. Obviously that is completely beyond your capabilities.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 10:53:26
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: George would make a good PR
|
On Apr 17, 7:39 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > See, George, you could do a good PR. Or perhaps we should give the
> > "honor" to that other George that lead us into the costliest war after
> > WWII over nonexistent WMDs...
>
> > "I defy anyone to read the middle chapters of The Cigarette Century,
> > the ones that detail the foundation of the Tobacco Institute and the
> > industry's efforts to muddy scientific waters, and not come away with
> > a burning need to drive down to North Carolina and find someone to
> > throttle. Or Madison Avenue. Among the many villains Brandt skillfully
> > waterboards are executives at the public relations giant Hill &
> > Knowlton, which during the 1950s single-handedly orchestrated Big
> > Tobacco's campaign to undermine anti-smoking advocates and scientists
> > up to and including the surgeon general. No lie was too big to tell,
> > no bit of pseudo-science too ridiculous to pass off as legitimate.
> > Parents, if you have teenagers considering a career in p.r., have them
> > read this first. I can't remember the last time I read a more scathing
> > indictment of corporate malfeasance."
>
> You changed the subject, but I don't smoke, for the record. I do have a
> tobacco buyout.-
The subject is the same in two ways: CORPORATIONS DO MANIPULATE THE
TRUTH, and DRIVING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH (think of the epidemic
of overweight people, for example) AND TO OTHERS (think of accidents
and Global Warming).
By the way, if you don't smoke is your business, but if you pollute is
not.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 19:07:22
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: George would make a good PR
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176918806.201811.150790@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 7:39 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > See, George, you could do a good PR. Or perhaps we should give the
> > > "honor" to that other George that lead us into the costliest war after
> > > WWII over nonexistent WMDs...
> >
> > > "I defy anyone to read the middle chapters of The Cigarette Century,
> > > the ones that detail the foundation of the Tobacco Institute and the
> > > industry's efforts to muddy scientific waters, and not come away with
> > > a burning need to drive down to North Carolina and find someone to
> > > throttle. Or Madison Avenue. Among the many villains Brandt skillfully
> > > waterboards are executives at the public relations giant Hill &
> > > Knowlton, which during the 1950s single-handedly orchestrated Big
> > > Tobacco's campaign to undermine anti-smoking advocates and scientists
> > > up to and including the surgeon general. No lie was too big to tell,
> > > no bit of pseudo-science too ridiculous to pass off as legitimate.
> > > Parents, if you have teenagers considering a career in p.r., have them
> > > read this first. I can't remember the last time I read a more scathing
> > > indictment of corporate malfeasance."
> >
> > You changed the subject, but I don't smoke, for the record. I do have a
> > tobacco buyout.-
>
> The subject is the same in two ways: CORPORATIONS DO MANIPULATE THE
> TRUTH,
The APA manipulates the truth big time.
and DRIVING IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH
But far safer than horses, bicycles and about the same as other forms of
transportation, overall.
(think of the epidemic
> of overweight people,
Imagine: Life expectancy keeps going up, despite your predictions of
fear.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 13:33:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: George would make a good PR
|
> On Apr 14, 3:18 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
> > Y'all need to read Hofstadter's book on the paranoid in American politics.
> > You are good examples.
See, George, you could do a good PR. Or perhaps we should give the
"honor" to that other George that lead us into the costliest war after
WWII over nonexistent WMDs...
"I defy anyone to read the middle chapters of The Cigarette Century,
the ones that detail the foundation of the Tobacco Institute and the
industry's efforts to muddy scientific waters, and not come away with
a burning need to drive down to North Carolina and find someone to
throttle. Or Madison Avenue. Among the many villains Brandt skillfully
waterboards are executives at the public relations giant Hill &
Knowlton, which during the 1950s single-handedly orchestrated Big
Tobacco's campaign to undermine anti-smoking advocates and scientists
up to and including the surgeon general. No lie was too big to tell,
no bit of pseudo-science too ridiculous to pass off as legitimate.
Parents, if you have teenagers considering a career in p.r., have them
read this first. I can't remember the last time I read a more scathing
indictment of corporate malfeasance."
http://www.amazon.com/Cigarette-Century-Persistence-Product-Defined/dp/0465070477
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 23:39:50
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: George would make a good PR
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176842021.985381.13770@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 14, 3:18 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Y'all need to read Hofstadter's book on the paranoid in American
politics.
> > > You are good examples.
>
> See, George, you could do a good PR. Or perhaps we should give the
> "honor" to that other George that lead us into the costliest war after
> WWII over nonexistent WMDs...
>
> "I defy anyone to read the middle chapters of The Cigarette Century,
> the ones that detail the foundation of the Tobacco Institute and the
> industry's efforts to muddy scientific waters, and not come away with
> a burning need to drive down to North Carolina and find someone to
> throttle. Or Madison Avenue. Among the many villains Brandt skillfully
> waterboards are executives at the public relations giant Hill &
> Knowlton, which during the 1950s single-handedly orchestrated Big
> Tobacco's campaign to undermine anti-smoking advocates and scientists
> up to and including the surgeon general. No lie was too big to tell,
> no bit of pseudo-science too ridiculous to pass off as legitimate.
> Parents, if you have teenagers considering a career in p.r., have them
> read this first. I can't remember the last time I read a more scathing
> indictment of corporate malfeasance."
You changed the subject, but I don't smoke, for the record. I do have a
tobacco buyout.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 11:42:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Shoud there be a "freedom to pollute"?
|
On Apr 14, 3:18 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote:
> "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote in message
>
> Y'all need to read Hofstadter's book on the paranoid in American politics.
> You are good examples.
George, Big Oil and Big Tobacco are very similar. Even when Big
Tobacco knew of the risks of smoking, they dismissed it by hiring a
good PR firm to throw confusion about the issue. Maybe you should try
to work for one, if you are not already doing so...
The big difference is that smokers mostly pollute their own lungs.
SUVs, though, are dangerous to all who inhabit this planet. A label
may just say, "This Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle is dangerous to
your health, and to those around you."
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 14:19:19
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Welcome to the Global Economy or Welcome to the Jungle?
|
""We don't want to pollute - but it's OK if China does - - - ""
> Welcome to the Global Economy
> It's not politics - - It's business
> Remember supply and demand. How about we demand, and they supply. It's a new version of > the NIMBY syndrome. We want (just for you) new bicycles, but don't be polluting our air to
> make it for me.
You may as well may have given it the title "Welcome to the Jungle"...
which proves my point that we reject civilization in order to eat each
other --or may I say in order to compete unequally, where the unions --
American unions-- are crushed before the never tiring, never
complaining Chinese workers...
"What is the ket? It is the law of the jungle, the law of nature.
And what is civilization? It is the struggle against nature."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2003/20031211/default.htm
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 13:48:08
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
On Apr 13, 5:20 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176490055.357952.242350@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily by
> > drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In other
> > words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's the
> > gasoline addicts."
>
> So where did this "oil money" come from? Before you answer, be careful,
> you about to justify the Iraq War.
My understanding is that it went through Saudi hands, just as the
terrorists were Saudis. And WHO feeds the Saudis? That's right, our
administration and our SUV drivers.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:47:35
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
--show me a car that a poor person can afford today that is fuel
efficient and clean--
The bike, public transportation, car pooling, car sharing... they all
are available cheap options to the public. However because they are
just plain dangerous (the bike) or never spoken about, they are out of
mind for most folks. A good campaign may start by putting bin Laden on
the passenger seat...
"The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily by
drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In other
words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's the
gasoline addicts."
(some info here for those who want to start THE REVOLUTION)
So you say you want a revolution? Well, we all want to change the
world. So what? Quit bitching and moaning, quit bellyaching, and get
off your duff. There is no way to change the world by sitting on your
ass in an air conditioned room, even if you listen to nothing but
early Dylan and read nothing but Hunter Thompson. You can't change the
world unless you change yourself first. As Gandhi used to say, "Be the
change you want to see in the world".
http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/GlobalWarning/1054.html
MORE OPTIONS HERE...
http://www.mycommute.org/site/options
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 16:20:24
From: di
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176490055.357952.242350@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> "The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily by
> drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In other
> words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's the
> gasoline addicts."
>
So where did this "oil money" come from? Before you answer, be careful,
you about to justify the Iraq War.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 17:47:07
From: Chris
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in news:buSTh.22467$Pi4.2212@newsfe14.lga:
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1176490055.357952.242350@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> "The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily
>> by drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In
>> other words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's
>> the gasoline addicts."
>>
>
> So where did this "oil money" come from? Before you answer, be
> careful, you about to justify the Iraq War.
>
>
>
The people who who attacked America on 9/11 were funded by the taxes the
Americam people pay every year on April 15. They are :
Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz
Please see : http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 16:19:07
From: di
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
"Chris" <chris@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns991580D6D587Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in news:buSTh.22467$Pi4.2212@newsfe14.lga:
>
>>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1176490055.357952.242350@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>> "The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily
>>> by drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In
>>> other words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's
>>> the gasoline addicts."
>>>
>>
>> So where did this "oil money" come from? Before you answer, be
>> careful, you about to justify the Iraq War.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The people who who attacked America on 9/11 were funded by the taxes the
> Americam people pay every year on April 15. They are :
> Elliott Abrams
> Gary Bauer
> William J. Bennett
> Jeb Bush
> Dick Cheney
> Eliot A. Cohen
> Midge Decter
> Paula Dobriansky
> Steve Forbes
> Aaron Friedberg
> Francis Fukuyama
> Frank Gaffney
> Fred C. Ikle
> Donald Kagan
> Zalmay Khalilzad
> I. Lewis Libby
> Norman Podhoretz
> Dan Quayle
> Peter W. Rodman
> Stephen P. Rosen
> Henry S. Rowen
> Donald Rumsfeld
> Vin Weber
> George Weigel
> Paul Wolfowitz
>
>
> Please see : http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
That was a really stupid reply.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:52:59
From: Chris
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in news:XQaVh.8601$OT4.8578@newsfe19.lga:
>
> "Chris" <chris@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns991580D6D587Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in news:buSTh.22467$Pi4.2212
@newsfe14.lga:
>>
>>>
>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1176490055.357952.242350@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> "The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily
>>>> by drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In
>>>> other words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's
>>>> the gasoline addicts."
>>>>
>>>
>>> So where did this "oil money" come from? Before you answer, be
>>> careful, you about to justify the Iraq War.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The people who who attacked America on 9/11 were funded by the taxes
the
>> Americam people pay every year on April 15. They are :
>> Elliott Abrams
>> Gary Bauer
>> William J. Bennett
>> Jeb Bush
>> Dick Cheney
>> Eliot A. Cohen
>> Midge Decter
>> Paula Dobriansky
>> Steve Forbes
>> Aaron Friedberg
>> Francis Fukuyama
>> Frank Gaffney
>> Fred C. Ikle
>> Donald Kagan
>> Zalmay Khalilzad
>> I. Lewis Libby
>> Norman Podhoretz
>> Dan Quayle
>> Peter W. Rodman
>> Stephen P. Rosen
>> Henry S. Rowen
>> Donald Rumsfeld
>> Vin Weber
>> George Weigel
>> Paul Wolfowitz
>>
>>
>> Please see :
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>
> That was a really stupid reply.
>
>
>
You wouldn't think this was a 'really stupid reply' if you had read the
book that initiated this web site:
"Project for a new American Century, Rebuilding American Defences"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2007 20:59:48
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: to start THE REVOLUTION
|
"Chris" <chris@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:Xns991580D6D587Bchrisyahoocom@66.150.105.47...
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in news:buSTh.22467$Pi4.2212@newsfe14.lga:
>
> >
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1176490055.357952.242350@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >> "The terrorists who attacked America weren't being funded priily
> >> by drug money. They were being funded priily by oil money. In
> >> other words, it isn't the drug addicts who should feel guilty. It's
> >> the gasoline addicts."
> >>
> >
> > So where did this "oil money" come from? Before you answer, be
> > careful, you about to justify the Iraq War.
> >
> >
> >
>
> The people who who attacked America on 9/11 were funded by the taxes the
> Americam people pay every year on April 15. They are :
> Elliott Abrams
> Gary Bauer
> William J. Bennett
> Jeb Bush
> Dick Cheney
> Eliot A. Cohen
> Midge Decter
> Paula Dobriansky
> Steve Forbes
> Aaron Friedberg
> Francis Fukuyama
> Frank Gaffney
> Fred C. Ikle
> Donald Kagan
> Zalmay Khalilzad
> I. Lewis Libby
> Norman Podhoretz
> Dan Quayle
> Peter W. Rodman
> Stephen P. Rosen
> Henry S. Rowen
> Donald Rumsfeld
> Vin Weber
> George Weigel
> Paul Wolfowitz
>
>
> Please see : http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
>
You forgot:
Donald Duck
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
--Electric cars - - - add a million to the world fleet, and then tell
me how your gonna recharge them.
Either look at the bigger picture, or go back to jousting with your
SUV Windmill.--
As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
And in some other cases is the bike, and then public transportation
and so on. So the solution is MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION combined with
MULTIMODAL ENERGY, meaning options like the Ethanol or Hydrogen
fuels...
What we need though is the POLITICAL WILL --or THE REVOLUTION-- to
make it happen.
"Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of
the next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we
won't do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it
and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding
commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these
commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed. Little will
be done. . . . Global warming promises to become a gushing source of
national hypocrisy.''
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 15:30:24
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
On 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote:
>As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
Windmills are a good supplement. In the U.S. with tax breaks and
setasides, even the oil companies are buying lots, but its a huge
investment and it doesn't add up to much as a percentage of the power
needed and in the windiest areas they aren't reliable enough to
support even a small grid on their own. Windmills are not a solution.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 09:34:08
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:eemv139bpjqdmgs1d4soif07actohg488v@4ax.com...
> On 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
>
> Windmills are a good supplement. In the U.S. with tax breaks and
> setasides, even the oil companies are buying lots, but its a huge
> investment and it doesn't add up to much as a percentage of the power
> needed and in the windiest areas they aren't reliable enough to
> support even a small grid on their own. Windmills are not a solution.
>
I guess you've never been to the Oregon Coast.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 19:21:59
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:34:08 -0700, "Baxter"
<lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>I guess you've never been to the Oregon Coast.
What power grid is supported solely by windmills? According to WSJ
sources, none in the U.S. - and in the windiest part of the U.S. on a
consistent basis - in the Southwest, not Oregon - even if the windmill
system is fully developed with state of the art technology, they can't
support a power grid on their own. That means that they may be a
useful or even a major adjunct, but they aren't a solution.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 00:31:11
From: Bill
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0700, "donquijote1954"
> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
>
> Windmills are a good supplement. In the U.S. with tax breaks and
> setasides, even the oil companies are buying lots, but its a huge
> investment and it doesn't add up to much as a percentage of the power
> needed and in the windiest areas they aren't reliable enough to
> support even a small grid on their own. Windmills are not a solution.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
Has anybody looked at the current generation of high-tech (sic) windmills?
They are a joke, and bird killers to boot.
The best windmill designs were those that were in use in the 1930's when
the TVA project demanded that a farmer take down or disable his windmill
to get power to the farm. Obviously that would take enough electricity
to pay for running out the electricity so the farmer could have electric
lights. The new, 3 skinny blade windmills are a joke since 90% of the
air pass right through the gaps.
The intake vanes of a modern jet engine show how a windmill should be
designed, along with a feathering mechanism for windy days.
Too much thinking for the current crop of over-educated dimwits.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 08:26:36
From: Dave Head
Subject: Re: national hypocrisy
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:31:11 -0700, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2007 11:27:43 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>> <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As a matter of fact, windmills are a good solution --in some cases.
>>
>> Windmills are a good supplement. In the U.S. with tax breaks and
>> setasides, even the oil companies are buying lots, but its a huge
>> investment and it doesn't add up to much as a percentage of the power
>> needed and in the windiest areas they aren't reliable enough to
>> support even a small grid on their own. Windmills are not a solution.
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
>Has anybody looked at the current generation of high-tech (sic) windmills?
>They are a joke, and bird killers to boot.
Oh, F the damn birds. Sit under the damn thing with a net, pluck 'em, fry at
350 degrees.
>The best windmill designs were those that were in use in the 1930's when
>the TVA project demanded that a farmer take down or disable his windmill
>to get power to the farm. Obviously that would take enough electricity
>to pay for running out the electricity so the farmer could have electric
>lights. The new, 3 skinny blade windmills are a joke since 90% of the
>air pass right through the gaps.
Will still produce 10 Kw from a 27 foot fan in a 12 mph wind, so they can't be
all that bad.
>The intake vanes of a modern jet engine show how a windmill should be
>designed, along with a feathering mechanism for windy days.
>Too much thinking for the current crop of over-educated dimwits.
>Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 11:01:41
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: "Republicans Love Dick"
|
On Apr 13, 12:21 am, "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote:
> On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 9:40 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1176142421.980831.290370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
> > > > Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
> > > > and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.
>
> > > > The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...
>
> > > >http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
>
> > > This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain it.
> > > But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.
>
> > So many bumper stickers and ribbons on SUVs... I guess they want to
> > show their support for the troops but keep burning gas like supporting
> > terrorism. Or perhaps they just want to hide the latter fact. Anyway,
> > this their latest bumper sticker...
>
> >http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/religious-spiritual/What-SUV-Woul...
>
> I saw a cool one last week. It was one of thiese bumper stickers:http://www.goats.com/store/rfv.html
> It was, obviously, on a Subaru.-
Sorry but couldn't find that one. Only found this... "Jesus Loves
Dick" Sticker, but I guess you can put "Republicans Love Dick" and
still makes sense.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 21:21:20
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> On Apr 9, 9:40 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1176142421.980831.290370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
> > > Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
> > > and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.
>
> > > The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...
>
> > >http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
>
> > This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain it.
> > But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.
>
> So many bumper stickers and ribbons on SUVs... I guess they want to
> show their support for the troops but keep burning gas like supporting
> terrorism. Or perhaps they just want to hide the latter fact. Anyway,
> this their latest bumper sticker...
>
> http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/religious-spiritual/What-SUV-Woul...
I saw a cool one last week. It was one of thiese bumper stickers:
http://www.goats.com/store/rfv.html
It was, obviously, on a Subaru.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 07:22:05
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1176438080.272138.257460@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 12, 4:12 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 9:40 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:1176142421.980831.290370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and
>> > > pompous.
>> > > Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
>> > > and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.
>>
>> > > The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...
>>
>> > >http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
>>
>> > This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain
>> > it.
>> > But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.
>>
>> So many bumper stickers and ribbons on SUVs... I guess they want to
>> show their support for the troops but keep burning gas like supporting
>> terrorism. Or perhaps they just want to hide the latter fact. Anyway,
>> this their latest bumper sticker...
>>
>> http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/religious-spiritual/What-SUV-Woul...
>
>
> I saw a cool one last week. It was one of thiese bumper stickers:
> http://www.goats.com/store/rfv.html
> It was, obviously, on a Subaru.
That's plain silly. Republicans don't even let their children watch Harry
Potter, because they believe it might lead them to believe in magic.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Apr 2007 20:32:46
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
In article <ABKTh.2406$vD4.975@bigfe9 >,
Amy Blankenship <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
>
>
>That's plain silly. Republicans don't even let their children watch Harry
>Potter, because they believe it might lead them to believe in magic.
Nonsense. There are many enlightened Republicans who have no problem
with magic. THEY don't allow their children to watch Harry Potter
because the Malfoys hit a little too close to home.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 13:12:06
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Apr 9, 9:40 pm, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176142421.980831.290370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
> > Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
> > and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.
>
> > The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...
>
> >http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
>
> This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain it.
> But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.
So many bumper stickers and ribbons on SUVs... I guess they want to
show their support for the troops but keep burning gas like supporting
terrorism. Or perhaps they just want to hide the latter fact. Anyway,
this their latest bumper sticker...
http://www.toppun.com/ProductImages/religious-spiritual/What-SUV-Would-Jesus-Drive_small.gif
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 12:46:46
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Shoud there be a "freedom to pollute"?
|
On Apr 9, 8:35 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam > wrote:
> Dave Head wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
>
> >>Again.
>
> > People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> > money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
> That's the reason some people drive them. Others drive them for no good
> reason other than we have a thing called freedom in the US.
I'd call it "freedom to pollute"... But should there be such a
freedom, or freedom should be better understood to mean...
Herbert J. Muller. (1964). Freedom in the Western World:
>From the Dark Ages to the Rise of Democracy
"I am adhering to the broad but relatively neutral definition of
freedom as 'the condition of being able to choose and carry out
purposes.' This includes the most common meaning of the absence of
external constraints, or freedom from coercion; the idea of actual
ability with available means, or effective freedom to do what one
wishes; and the assumption of a power of deliberate choice between
known alternatives, involving freedom of mind and spirit, which is
hardest to specify but still distinguishes human freedom from the
ability of other animals to carry out their instinctive purposes. In
the words of Christian Bay, 'A person is free to the extent that he
has the capacity, the opportunity, and the incentive to give
expression to what is in him and to develop his potentialities.'
"So defined, I repeat, freedom means concretely freedoms of various
kinds, which may be at least roughly specified. Among the most
fundamental is political freedom, involving some means of control of
rulers by the ruled, some protection of the individual against
government by legal rights or civil liberties."
But for most of history...
The ruling powers tended to adopt one or a combination of these:
plutocracy - rule through wealth
militarism - rule through military power
sacerdotalism - rule through religious dogma and practice
oligarchy - rule through a small cabal
"In general, the common people enjoyed little if any freedom, serving
at the behest of their rulers. The rulers kept their subjects under
control through conditioning them with religions which sanctioned the
ruler's power. Common people were forced to work at mind- and body-
destroying jobs which gave them no time or energy for reflective
thought or unified reform activities."
So the "freedom" to drive an SUV (Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle) has
more to do with the freedom MONEY buys you (PLUTOCRACY) and little to
do with human freedom (DEMOCRACY), in which we still may not do much
better than the cavemen, with due respect to those who didn't use the
stick as a way of life. ;)
"The outstanding ingredient which the Greeks contributed to the
evolution of human freedom was the concept of democracy: the rule of
citizens. The idea now became a part of human thought: that common
people could and should govern themselves, without having to bow to a
military, political, economic, or religious ruler. This concept was to
play an important role throughout modern history, as people returned
to the idea that they could rule themselves. As we shall see, this
ideal of citizen self-rule is still unrealized, even in twenty-first-
century America. However, the ideal continues to have a powerful
influence over human thought and serves as a goal toward which we can
aspire."
http://www.hermes-press.com/history1.htm
So, I guess, FREEDOM COMES IN A BICYCLE, at least democracy does...
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:36:23
From: nash
Subject: Re: Shoud there be a "freedom to pollute"?
|
You mean freedom to kill ourselves on a bicycle is at least democracy.
Drivers have a superiority complex. They will never be motivated to govern
themselves for the good of the people. Sad note eh! : (
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Apr 2007 20:28:41
From: nash
Subject: Re: Shoud there be a "freedom to pollute"?
|
"So defined, I repeat, freedom means concretely freedoms of various
kinds, which may be at least roughly specified. Among the most
fundamental is political freedom, involving some means of control of
rulers by the ruled, some protection of the individual against
government by legal rights or civil liberties."
<<<<<,
and we all know how well that worked out. Sorry could not resist
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 19:18:10
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Shoud there be a "freedom to pollute"?
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:ZDwTh.64893$6m4.36854@pd7urf1no...
> "So defined, I repeat, freedom means concretely freedoms of various
> kinds, which may be at least roughly specified. Among the most
> fundamental is political freedom, involving some means of control of
> rulers by the ruled, some protection of the individual against
> government by legal rights or civil liberties."
>
> <<<<<,
>
> and we all know how well that worked out. Sorry could not resist
>
Y'all need to read Hofstadter's book on the paranoid in American politics.
You are good examples.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Apr 2007 15:40:23
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Shoud there be a "freedom to pollute"?
|
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message
news:SN9Uh.21378$PL.17660@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote in message
> news:ZDwTh.64893$6m4.36854@pd7urf1no...
>> "So defined, I repeat, freedom means concretely freedoms of various
>> kinds, which may be at least roughly specified. Among the most
>> fundamental is political freedom, involving some means of control of
>> rulers by the ruled, some protection of the individual against
>> government by legal rights or civil liberties."
>>
>> <<<<<,
>>
>> and we all know how well that worked out. Sorry could not resist
>>
>
> Y'all need to read Hofstadter's book on the paranoid in American politics.
> You are good examples.
Just because people are paranoid does not mean the government is not out to
get them!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:58:32
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Don't confuse Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles with 4x4s
|
On Apr 9, 5:41 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
> >Again.
>
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
>
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
Don't confuse Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles with 4x4s. I quote
here...
There is often confusion as to the difference between 4X4s and SUVs.
This leads to criticisms of 4X4 vehicles in the media that should
actually be directed at SUVs...
For example...
Psychology
SUV safety concerns are compounded by a perception among some
consumers that SUVs are safer for their drivers than standard cars.
According to G. C. Rapaille, a psychological consultant to automakers
(as cited in Gladwell, 2004), many consumers feel safer in SUVs simply
because their ride height makes "[their passengers] higher and
dominate and look down (sic). That you can look down [on other people]
is psychologically a very powerful notion."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-wheel_drive
So SUVs are the favorite vehicle of the wannabe Napoleons that want to
feel "superior," not that of the real adventurous people like these...
http://www.outback4x4challenge.com/images/20051lg.jpg
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:13:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
On Apr 9, 7:49 am, "di" <di9...@cox.net > wrote:
> > 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have
> > made
> > it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
>
> Number 6, they might just want one.-
Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.
The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...
http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 20:40:56
From: di
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1176142421.980831.290370@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lions and monkeys don't want the same. Lions dream of big and pompous.
> Monkeys are more into practical, fun things like bikes, motorcycles
> and EVs. And they are beautiful, just not pompous.
>
> The only areawhere you are #1 is in ribbons...
>
> http://blogorelli.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/ribbons.gif
>
This doesn't make any sense at all to me, I guess you need to explain it.
But then again, not much you ever say makes much sense.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 11:03:44
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles
|
On Apr 9, 5:41 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 07:09:23 GMT, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >So why are these people driving these lame ass SUV's?
> >Again.
>
Many many excuses here...
> People drive lame-ass SUV's because they occasionally need one and only have
> money enough for 1 vehicle. They occasionally need one because:
Or they could buy three Ford Focus for the price of one SUV.
>
> 1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
> anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
First of all, we are aiming at SUPERSIZED SUVs here and that got
nothing to do with the capacity of a 4x4 to handle snow. Supersized
Unnecessary Vehicles are deadly to other people and, pollute
unncessarily and are often driven by undertrained drivers while
chatting on the phone.
>
> 2) They have more than 2 kids, and at least 2 of them still require child
> safety seats. Put 2 child safety seats in the back seat, and you aren't
> putting anything else there. They need a 3rd row of seats.
OK, minivans are better at that and have lower bumpers as well as
better aerodynamics.
>
> 3) They need a vehicle that will haul stuff out into the suburbs, stuff from
> Home Depot, Lowes, etc.
And why don't you rent U-Haul?
>
> 4) They want to pull a big boat or some other trailer for recreation, and the
> SUV is about the only thing other than a truck that is up to the job. Some
> people actually buy the trucks for this, but other people don't like that
> either.
Exactly, two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> 5) What they really need is a large station wagon, but Federal laws have made
> it all but impossible to build those, so the next best thing is an SUV.
Federal laws made it easy for the Big Three to compete in the only
area they could against the ster, more efficient Japanese and
European cars: GET BIGGER. Big is Good, Big is Beautiful, and Big
feeds the Big Three the best.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:34:19
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:%7hRh.39138$5i7.29213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:G3gRh.18717$PL.2393@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:KGfRh.28429$_a1.8676@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:ThfRh.21398$Jl.20148@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >
> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
message
> >> > news:gdfRh.28409$_a1.5282@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin"
<georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it
should
> > be
> >> >> > solved?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family
> > housing
> >> > in
> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a real
> >> >> >> > problems
> >> >> >> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
> >> >> > carefully-constructed
> >> >> >> > lie.-
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned,
> > versus
> >> >> >> unplanned and stupid?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning by
> >> > idiots
> >> >> > who lie to us.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
> > have
> >> > at
> >> >> least tried to come up with solutions to problems,
> >> >
> >> > You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT
a
> >> > problem. St Growth tries to make it a problem. They have failed.
> > In
> >> > fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they
did
> > in
> >> > the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made
by
> >> > increments. It is harmed by ideologies like St Growth.
> >>
> >> St Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky
> >> dorey
> >> with unplanned growth as you like to pretend.
> >
> > Critics have always had vague hates and need something to pin it on.
> > Happy people don't look for things to moan about, as in happy
> > single-family
> > homeowner.
>
> I suppose that's why you're so critical of those who think things could be
> improved.
St Growth is a step backwards into fake history. Its promised are
built on flat-out lies.
>
> > "The development of the last
> >> 50 years" is NOT a school of thought.
> >
> > The critics have always had the same rant. They just love what
happened
> > in the past, so they can criticize the present. As you do. Happy
people
> > don't complain all the time.
>
> Then you should quit complaining that people on a forum called
> alt.planning.urban want to discuss urban planning. If you have nothing to
> add to the discussion of the topic this was set up to discuss, why are you
> even here?
Urban planning is only about St Growth. We need to plan for what
people really want, not for what you want to do to them.
> > I suggest again the book "Sprawl: A Compact History" to see how the
> > critics constantly change what they say to make the past seem good and
the
> > future bad. The vocabulary you spout is about 150 years old. It is a
> > negative approach, and the rest of the world goes about its way
ignorning
> > naysayers. Happy people don't develop and ideology like you demand.
> > Unhappy people do. Why are you so unhappy?
>
> What vocabulary? I simply asked you to point out a different school of
> thought. Obviously that is completely beyond your capabilities.
>
>
The fact that you want a label pasted on planning shows you have no
ability to look at multiple facts and simply want a religion.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 19:09:47
From: Tom Keats
Subject: Re: Occidental CEO got more than $400 million in 2006
|
In article <m4ml13dk00aeh8e4de5lf884ff06o3brsf@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > writes:
>>1) It snows like hell at least a few times a year, they have to drive it, and
>>anything else they might buy has a higher chance of getting stuck in the snow.
>>
> That would explain why the most common vehicle stuck in the middle of
> the snow bank is a SUV. We didn't have SUVs back in the 1960s and got
> to work just fine in Michigan.
I wonder if there's a correlation between the upsurge of
popularity of SUVs, and the release of the film: Dante's Peak.
The SUV that starred in that flick could survive anything
Hollywood threw at it.
cheers,
Tom
--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 07:56:08
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:%eqRh.93$3P3.3@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:%7hRh.39138$5i7.29213@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:G3gRh.18717$PL.2393@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>> > news:KGfRh.28429$_a1.8676@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> >>
>> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:ThfRh.21398$Jl.20148@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in
> message
>> >> > news:gdfRh.28409$_a1.5282@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:JydRh.21378$Jl.13195@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:1175803129.287313.178400@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> >> >> >> On Apr 4, 7:50 pm, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > > So, though you see it as a problem, you don't believe it
> should
>> > be
>> >> >> > solved?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I do NOT accept the idea that development with single-family
>> > housing
>> >> > in
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > past 50 years is any kind of a problem. St Growth is a
>> >> >> >> > real
>> >> >> >> > problems
>> >> >> >> > since it is a dream, but not a real problem. It is a
>> >> >> > carefully-constructed
>> >> >> >> > lie.-
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned,
>> > versus
>> >> >> >> unplanned and stupid?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > St Growth is stupid. You have it backwards. It is planning
>> >> >> > by
>> >> > idiots
>> >> >> > who lie to us.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't you see that if you're going to criticize the only people who
>> > have
>> >> > at
>> >> >> least tried to come up with solutions to problems,
>> >> >
>> >> > You don't understand. The development of the past 50 years is NOT
> a
>> >> > problem. St Growth tries to make it a problem. They have
>> >> > failed.
>> > In
>> >> > fact, cities have evolved in the past 50 years very much like they
> did
>> > in
>> >> > the previous 50, despite slogans and flame wars. Progress is made
> by
>> >> > increments. It is harmed by ideologies like St Growth.
>> >>
>> >> St Growth wouldn't have any adherents if everything were as hunky
>> >> dorey
>> >> with unplanned growth as you like to pretend.
>> >
>> > Critics have always had vague hates and need something to pin it on.
>> > Happy people don't look for things to moan about, as in happy
>> > single-family
>> > homeowner.
>>
>> I suppose that's why you're so critical of those who think things could
>> be
>> improved.
>
> St Growth is a step backwards into fake history. Its promised are
> built on flat-out lies.
>
>
>>
>> > "The development of the last
>> >> 50 years" is NOT a school of thought.
>> >
>> > The critics have always had the same rant. They just love what
> happened
>> > in the past, so they can criticize the present. As you do. Happy
> people
>> > don't complain all the time.
>>
>> Then you should quit complaining that people on a forum called
>> alt.planning.urban want to discuss urban planning. If you have nothing
>> to
>> add to the discussion of the topic this was set up to discuss, why are
>> you
>> even here?
>
> Urban planning is only about St Growth. We need to plan for what
> people really want, not for what you want to do to them.
>
>
>> > I suggest again the book "Sprawl: A Compact History" to see how the
>> > critics constantly change what they say to make the past seem good and
> the
>> > future bad. The vocabulary you spout is about 150 years old. It is a
>> > negative approach, and the rest of the world goes about its way
> ignorning
>> > naysayers. Happy people don't develop and ideology like you demand.
>> > Unhappy people do. Why are you so unhappy?
>>
>> What vocabulary? I simply asked you to point out a different school of
>> thought. Obviously that is completely beyond your capabilities.
>>
>>
> The fact that you want a label pasted on planning shows you have no
> ability to look at multiple facts and simply want a religion.
In other words "no, I can't answer your question." Thanks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 08:00:15
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Hit and Run: drivers more dangerous than sharks
|
On Apr 18, 11:51 pm, "mcs" <m...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> the biggest conspiracy that continues today is coal and govts that allow
> emissions and diesel and industry pollution in the form of
> particulates...allowed to pollute and sicken people in direct proportion to
> amounts and how often and nothing is done. Its beyond unbelievable . Time
> and again I dare anyone objective to compare people who live near exhausts
> or on streets with lots of traffic or who get allot of particulate
> pollution to clean air states and people who don't and you will see more
> cancers heart disease and asthma and respiratory disease correlated to a
> science ... If you live next to a busy shopping center or street for example
> combined with a city affected with coal dust a state away . say minus a few
> years or measure the chances of you getting ill faster. Its all very very
> real and nothing is still done...
Don't tell me that: I just moved into such an apartment next to a busy
street. I hope the AC (which I'd have on all the time to block out the
noise) will filter such particulates. ;)
But hey, we could more bicycles in that thoroughfare --if only we had
some bike lanes. I do it, but I put my life on the line for just doing
the right thing. And like you say, nothing is being done --perhaps
because the predators have other priorities...
HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY
One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances
to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack
of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that
it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite
words...
Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life
in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season
the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the
Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would
have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more
importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as
the quick way out of poverty..."
And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle --
to the effect of exploring life in other planets...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2007 12:38:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Hit and Run: drivers more dangerous than sharks
|
"Sharks kill an average of 10 people a year worldwide.
Hit and run drivers kill more in 3 days in the U.S. alone.
For every one killed, 72 are injured on one of America's dangerous,
deadly roads.* "
http://www.deadlyroads.com/
Someone said "it's a jungle out there"?
Some story...
"I was riding my bicycle when the curtains fell (i.e.- a blank memory)
and I became unconscious"
Hello and Happy New Year!
I am very pleased to have found this community online. The messages
of perserverance that come from of the stories I read are
encouraging.
It's been over 8 years since my accident.
On August 19th, 1997, 4 days after my 20th birthday, I woke up in an
ambulance with no recollection of how I got there due to the amnesia.
To this day, I still don't recall an incident. I was riding my
bicycle when the curtains fell (i.e.- a blank memory) and I became
unconscious in what I remember as the best sleep I ever had-until I
woke up. There were no witnesses, or suspects in the ambulance with
me, only myself and the Paramedics. They checked me for paralysis,
but luckily there was none. My helmet had saved my life, and my
sunglasses had just barely protected my eyes by not shattering.
However, my head was hurting intensely from a concussion, and I had
bitten a painful hole in my inner lower lip. The right half of my
face was scraped from top to bottom and bleeding and I was
unrecognizable and the bleeding was constant. I was rushed to a head
trauma clinic and astonishingly released after only the minimum 12
hour stay, and while blod still seeped from my face.
Briefly, the doctors prescribed me a very strong but incorrect
medication, whcih eventually prolonged my battle with PTSD and my
recovery. It also took me 10 months of making several phone calls
everyday to clear up the medical billing and insurance claim
situations (i.e.-what I was entitled to free was going to cost close
to $10,000).
The police called me after my accident and explained that the front
tire had come off my bike. They said they thought I must have been
hit by a car, given that it would have taken an certain amount of
force for the tire to have come off. A suspect has never been
caught. That was the least of my worries, though.
Over the past 8 years, I have come a long way battling headaches,
PTSD, and emotional instability. I have practiced deep breathing,
meditation and yoga and find that these activities have done more for
my recovery than any drugs. Since my injuries are not internal, and
my face has healed quite dramatically and without surgery, people do
not realize that I am a survivor, as I still appear quite young,
healthy and strong. My head still hurts intensley, everyday. It has
not been easy, but I am very lucky to be here today.
In addition to my own case, I have also witnessed a hit-and-run
accident and I find it very hard to understand the mentality behind
such incidents.
I hope you will welcome me to your community as an advocate of peace
and an adversary of hit-and-run mentalites.
Peace and stay safe in 2006
MANY POWERFUL STORIES HERE...
http://www.deadlyroads.com/others/index.php?topic=253.msg704#msg704
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 13:34:19
From: SMS
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
> unplanned and stupid? Have you seen anything unplanned that produces
> the intended results, or you couldn't care less about the results, and
> you just want to go against common sense?
What bothers me is that I've seen the lie that is the horribly mis-named
"St Growth." It's an invention of developers to increase profits, at
the expense of the communities that it destroys. They're able to con a
few faux-environmentalists to support them, and of course they can get
the politicians that are owned by the building trades unions to support
building anything, no matter how destructive it is.
The result of "St Growth" where I live is more driving, less cycling,
less walking, increased traffic, over-crowded schools, destruction of
local businesses, and loss of major employers. All of this is not
intentional, rather it's a byproduct of the lack of a systems level
approach when doing planning. It's what you'd expect from developers
that plop down a high-density block of condos with unleasable stores on
the bottom, then run away to count their money leaving the community to
deal with the fallout from their "stness." When you try to tell the
politicians what the results will be, they label you as anti-growth,
NIMBY, etc., they just don't want to hear the facts.
On the other hand, I've seen new developments which were really
"st-growth" but not labeled as such. The developers made allowances
for schools, shopping, industry, housing, roads, recreation, etc. This
is more like "intelligent growth" than faux "St Growth." All this is
financed by special property tax assessments, in California it's called
Mello-Roos. It makes the property a tougher sell because of the higher
taxes.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:08:41
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com > wrote in message
news:46155d4d$0$27208$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > What does it bother you, the fact that it's st and planned, versus
> > unplanned and stupid? Have you seen anything unplanned that produces
> > the intended results, or you couldn't care less about the results, and
> > you just want to go against common sense?
>
> What bothers me is that I've seen the lie that is the horribly mis-named
> "St Growth." It's an invention of developers to increase profits, at
> the expense of the communities that it destroys. They're able to con a
> few faux-environmentalists to support them, and of course they can get
> the politicians that are owned by the building trades unions to support
> building anything, no matter how destructive it is.
>
> The result of "St Growth" where I live is more driving, less cycling,
> less walking, increased traffic, over-crowded schools, destruction of
> local businesses, and loss of major employers.
St Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current residents
out and moving in those with more money.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:34:13
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
In article <tzdRh.21379$Jl.19786@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>St Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current residents
>out and moving in those with more money.
I thought St Growth's one goal was keeping kids out. Isn't that
what you said before?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 11:24:50
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:8P-dnZ1f2pw4LIjbnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <tzdRh.21379$Jl.19786@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >St Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current residents
> >out and moving in those with more money.
>
> I thought St Growth's one goal was keeping kids out. Isn't that
> what you said before?
It is keeping kids out in New Jersey. The census is about ready to report
that in the 30 largest cities that St Growth replaces lower educational
levels of residents with higher educational levels, which is a proxy for
income. I attend demography conferences and see the data.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Apr 2007 07:55:27
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:66qRh.85$3P3.19@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:8P-dnZ1f2pw4LIjbnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <tzdRh.21379$Jl.19786@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >St Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current
>> >residents
>> >out and moving in those with more money.
>>
>> I thought St Growth's one goal was keeping kids out. Isn't that
>> what you said before?
>
> It is keeping kids out in New Jersey. The census is about ready to
> report
> that in the 30 largest cities that St Growth replaces lower educational
> levels of residents with higher educational levels, which is a proxy for
> income. I attend demography conferences and see the data.
That is known as "correlation" not "causation." Could it be that people of
higher educational levels seek out more well-thought-out places?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 21:51:42
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: promoting "smart growth"
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:8P-dnZ1f2pw4LIjbnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <tzdRh.21379$Jl.19786@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>St Growth has one goal: infill. This means getting current residents
>>out and moving in those with more money.
>
> I thought St Growth's one goal was keeping kids out. Isn't that
> what you said before?
He's good at math
|
| | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 01:07:50
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Deserving riders was Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 29 2007 11:24:36 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote:
>>much snipped
>
>--The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
>options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
>dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
>not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
>of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--
>
>Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
>population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
>affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
>the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
>a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
>them deserve no respect, neither good service.
While I have many gripes with New Jersey Transit, they manage to
provide normally clean buses (or at least did up until last year) with
cushioned seats. This includes routes that go through the Central
Ward of Newark, New Jersey. I have ridden them on the 34 ket and
21 Orange. It can be done and most of the riders do deserve the
respect. I am thinking especially of those who have to take long
reverse commutes to the suburbs for probably not fantastic pay.
>
>In other words,
>
>LIONS=SUVs
>MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 21:35:35
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
>
> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> population difficult to serve by buses.
Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 22:58:43
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
>> population difficult to serve by buses.
>
> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
Second only to hatred of the automobile.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 20:03:35
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
>>> population difficult to serve by buses.
>>
>> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
>Second only to hatred of the automobile.
Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the character
of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
given suburb can't afford to live there.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 20:43:27
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:ivqq035a9pgao0qd6045lei9ji5nfoi2s4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 2007 22:58:43 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
> >In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> >George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> >>> population difficult to serve by buses.
> >>
> >> Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
> >
> >Second only to hatred of the automobile.
> Most of the planners I see in Nova Scotia see the car as priy and
> give lip service to public transit. Looking at suburbia, the zoning
> laws and parking regulations favor automotive transport and single
> family homes and most of these rules are written by or at least
> influenced by planning departments. Indeed many areas ban 5 story
> condos and apartment dwellings because they would spoil the character
> of the community. One of the problems many suburbs have is that the
> residential zoning makes housing so expensive people who work for a
> given suburb can't afford to live there.
The more dense housing gets, the MORE it costs.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Mar 2007 10:58:46
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:-uOdnXUMFqJuF5HbnZ2dnUVZ_t2tnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <HiWOh.132409$_73.108511@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> >> population difficult to serve by buses.
> >
> > Hatred of single-family housing is the core belief of planners.
>
> Second only to hatred of the automobile.
Planners live in a dream world of utopia building. But what really
causes the damage are the lies they push about human behavior, all of which
are easily disproven, but never disappear from the dream-world of make
believe.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 15:02:11
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> Let me recycle this post...
>
> --The sprawl isn't the problem. In a majority of the mass transit
> options I have travelled in, the busses and trains are pretty dirty,
> dingy and smell. They don't get you anywhere fast, and sometimes, it's
> not cost effective. In some cases, public transportation is the option
> of the poor, those who have lost a license, or don't have a car.--
>
> Sprawl is indeed part of the problem. It creates a low density
> population difficult to serve by buses. And since they, being
> affluent, can afford an SUV, it becomes the vehicle of choice. Then
> the public transportation system left behind in the inner city becomes
> a reflection of the jungle where they operate. The monkeys that ride
> them deserve no respect, neither good service.
>
> In other words,
>
> LIONS=SUVs
> MONKEYS=poor public transportation and nonexistent bike facilities.
>
Here's my interpretation:
MONKEYS = poor saps who can only ride a bike if they have dedicated bike
reservations.
LIONS = empowered bicycle drivers who are competent enough to consider
normal roads "bicycle facliities."
WATER BUFFALO = motorists.
SHEEP = short haul public transit users.
Wayne
|
| |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 11:19:34
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
On 25, 6:56 pm, Dan <d...@nospam.com > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1173982571.731703.101450@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On 15, 12:27 pm, catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to
> look
> >> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many
> commercials
> >> > and too little real life.
>
> Some.
>
> >> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
> >> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
> >> hybrids built by Toyota.
>
> That's why I drive a Mormon stationwagon--the Astro compact van. It's
> hard to beat its combination of functionalities, gas mileage, camping,
> moving, towing, and low cost of ownership. Even a pick-up truck isn't as
> good.
>
> Still, I bicycle when I don't need any of its functions. I don't want an
> economy car, because it is really only would compete with the function
> that my bicycle already has.
It that the official Mormon policy? It sounds pretty good. I like
about them the fact that their kids go preaching on a bike. Still I
don't know whether it's policy or simply kids running on peanuts
(little money).
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 22:50:52
From: Dan
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:1175192374.775135.78370@r56g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
>> >> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that
>> >> > want to look adventurous and tough. I think they are
>> >> > watching too many commercials and too little real life.
>> Some.
>> >> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving
>> >> environment. I'm a firm believer that form should follow
>> >> function. I love the new hybrids built by Toyota.
>> That's why I drive a Mormon stationwagon--the Astro compact van. It's
>> hard to beat its combination of functionalities, gas mileage,
>> camping, moving, towing, and low cost of ownership. Even a pick-up
>> truck isn't as good.
>>
>> Still, I bicycle when I don't need any of its functions. I don't want
>> an economy car, because it is really only would compete with the
>> function that my bicycle already has.
> It that the official Mormon policy?
Caveat: I'm a born again Christian--not a Mormon. I'm not a Mormon. My
only qualifications for being a Mormon answerman are reks by Mormon
friends of my brother when I was younger and some books I've read by ex-
Mormons who sharply differentiate the deeper of Morman teachings from
biblical Christianity.
To answer you question: I don't think so--at least not for those older
Mormons who are not on missions. For one thing, Chevy no longer makes the
Astro and--to my mind--its Chevy-designated replacement isn't as good at
all of the functions.
For older Mormons, I think it would be easy for them to organize things
like car pools for both work and church. I suspect that any such
organizing of money-saving and public relations endeavors could relate to
a general policy, but any that any specific project would be according to
what is helpful in the local culture of the local church.
> It sounds pretty good.
I agree. It's a good example of right-sizing technology and resources.
> I like
> about them the fact that their kids go preaching on a bike.
I can imagine multiple advantages for that including financial and
psychological.
> Still I
> don't know whether it's policy or simply kids running on peanuts
> (little money).
For younger Mormons, I am convinced that this is policy, but don't hold
me to it.
I think that going on bicycle and wearing the white shirt and slacks
uniform has a psychological effect on the young Mormons. I think that
that is the main purpose. The effect could make some of the better
teachings seem more real to them and thereby help hold them in the church
for life as well.
I think a secondary reason is that the white shirts, slacks, and bicycles
are less intimidating to the non-Morman public--even ingratiating. I
think that another secondary reason would be to save missions money.
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 18:53:08
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 28, 2:14 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in messagenews:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <130gti4h7ne4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Baxter <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>> In article <130eaqvner87...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >>> Baxter <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>> >> In article
> >>> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>
> >>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
> >>time
> >>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>
> >>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> >>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
> >>longer.
>
> >>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
> >>> >car -
> >>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
>
> >>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
> >>> difficult for drivers.
>
> >>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
>
> >>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
> >>trip
> >>> >by car will be shorter.
>
> >>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
> >>> equivalent.
>
> >>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
> >>this
> >>truth.
>
> >>>Most trips are faster by car.
>
> >>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
>
> > No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
> > cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
> > transit.
>
London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the
ones I have
direct experience of.
Don't forget what is the highest volume mass transif system in the
country: Disney
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 10:33:57
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175133188.039918.103870@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 28, 2:14 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
messagenews:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <130gti4h7ne4...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > Baxter <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > >>> In article <130eaqvner87...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > >>> Baxter <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russo...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
message
> > >>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > >>> >> In article
> > >>>
><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >
> > >>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take
more
> > >>time
> > >>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
> >
> > >>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> > >>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit
takes
> > >>longer.
> >
> > >>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
> > >>> >car -
> > >>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
> >
> > >>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make
life
> > >>> difficult for drivers.
> >
> > >>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
> >
> > >>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than
every
> > >>trip
> > >>> >by car will be shorter.
> >
> > >>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
> > >>> equivalent.
> >
> > >>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
> > >>this
> > >>truth.
> >
> > >>>Most trips are faster by car.
> >
> > >>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is
meaningless.
> >
> > > No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
> > > cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
> > > transit.
> >
> London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the
> ones I have
> direct experience of.
>
> Don't forget what is the highest volume mass transif system in the
> country: Disney
>
Yes, the Disneyafacation of cities is well-known. He built downtowns about
90% of real size to make them more appealing and more "magical."
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 13:07:13
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 26, 5:21 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> >Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
> >mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.
>
> Presumably on the downslope. I've seen cyclists go 50mph down a hill
> in Philadelphia. But the route to the top of that hill isn't called
> "the Wall" for nothing. It's a hard climb. There are hills around
> me which I can do 40+mph on, but again, it's a hard climb to get up to
> them. They're easier than the one on my path to work; I've climbed
> that one a few times, and doing it twice every day is just not practical.
Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
How about the rest?
"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain
But don't tell to mountain bikers that they are incompatible with
mountains...
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 21:52:26
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 26, 5:21 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
>>> Additionally, I have seen cyclists going *faster* than the speed limit (30
>>> mph) on extreme slopes in Texas. great view from behind, let me tell you.
>> Presumably on the downslope. I've seen cyclists go 50mph down a hill
>> in Philadelphia. But the route to the top of that hill isn't called
>> "the Wall" for nothing. It's a hard climb. There are hills around
>> me which I can do 40+mph on, but again, it's a hard climb to get up to
>> them. They're easier than the one on my path to work; I've climbed
>> that one a few times, and doing it twice every day is just not practical.
It doesn't take an extreme slope to hit 50 MPH, only about 12% if my
guesstimate is correct. I have hit 50 MPH on the downhill on a highway
that I had to earn the 50 MPH by pedaling up. 50' elevation to 950' in
about 3 miles of rollers.
>
> Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
> it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
> How about the rest?
>
> "Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
> of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
> of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain
>
> But don't tell to mountain bikers that they are incompatible with
> mountains...
>
Mountains are good things to have around. Or big hills.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 17:19:22
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 27 2007 13:07:13 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote:
>Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
>it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
>How about the rest?
>
>"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
>of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
>of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."
Don't think that was his point at all, but he can answer that. The
amount of mountains is rarely the issue - the steepest hills are
often, perhaps usually, those too short to cause a problem for cars.
Most mountain roads are long and can't be that steep for long. Cars
and trucks would have a probelm going up and trucks a real problem
coming down.
OTOH, Franklin or Forrest in Monterey, CA are short and can pretty
much be as steep as they want - not long enough to cause a problem for
the cars. There is one near Monterey that I can't remember anymore,
where on some bikes you have a problem seeing the roadway in front at
one point. I've been on plenty of 'high hills' in Connecticut that
were steep enough for cars to routinely start sliding down from a dead
stop when snow fell. I would map a daily commute to avoid those if
possible. None would qualify as mountains.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 20:55:11
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <j42j039mas6ah9n3u8d418otpi15giqbb4@4ax.com >,
Curtis L. Russell <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
>On 27 2007 13:07:13 -0700, "donquijote1954"
><nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Are you trying to imply that biking in America is impractical because
>>it's such a mountainous country? What percentage of America is such?
>>How about the rest?
>>
>>"Mountains cover 54% of Asia, 36% of North America, 25% of Europe, 22%
>>of South America, 17% of Australia, and 3% of Africa. As a whole, 24%
>>of the Earth's land mass is mountainous."
>
>Don't think that was his point at all, but he can answer that. The
>amount of mountains is rarely the issue - the steepest hills are
>often, perhaps usually, those too short to cause a problem for cars.
>Most mountain roads are long and can't be that steep for long. Cars
>and trucks would have a probelm going up and trucks a real problem
>coming down.
I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
can commute on a bike in Denk, even with the three-speeds which are
common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
your car is much more difficult.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 17:00:42
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
> can commute on a bike in Denk, even with the three-speeds which are
> common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
> climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
> your car is much more difficult.
Yes, even an overpass can be a challenge in too high a gear, but is it
that hard to walk if you really can't pull the gear? A 3 speed should do
fine and is still better than riding in a polluting vehicle. Walking
gets you 3 MPH and a bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with almost zero effort,
12 MPH for just toodling around town and more if you want and are in any
kind of shape besides round. Even if you had to eat your dignity and
walk up a hill you still get to coast back down. I don't see a downside
here.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 22:07:54
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <_axOh.3709$Kd3.1358@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
>> can commute on a bike in Denk, even with the three-speeds which are
>> common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
>> climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
>> your car is much more difficult.
>
>Yes, even an overpass can be a challenge in too high a gear, but is it
>that hard to walk if you really can't pull the gear?
For an overpass? Maybe not. For half the journey? Then you're not
really biking, you're walking with a wheeled encumbrance.
>A 3 speed should do
>fine and is still better than riding in a polluting vehicle. Walking
>gets you 3 MPH and a bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with almost zero effort,
No. A bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with no effort _provided the terrain
is flat_. Which is why they work fine in Denk. Add any sort of
slope and you're working the whole time. All of e.g. West
Philadelphia is a slope. Most of the suburbs have hills and slopes.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 20:10:37
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <_axOh.3709$Kd3.1358@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> I wasn't talking about real mountains at all. Merely hills. Anyone
>>> can commute on a bike in Denk, even with the three-speeds which are
>>> common there. It's easier than walking, and faster. On a bike,
>>> climbing up and over a small ridge line which merely looks scenic in
>>> your car is much more difficult.
>> Yes, even an overpass can be a challenge in too high a gear, but is it
>> that hard to walk if you really can't pull the gear?
>
> For an overpass? Maybe not. For half the journey? Then you're not
> really biking, you're walking with a wheeled encumbrance.
I agree with that part of it but on rolling hills you can build up speed
on the downhills and usually power up the next. My way of riding, so it
may not fit in with the area you are riding.
>
>> A 3 speed should do
>> fine and is still better than riding in a polluting vehicle. Walking
>> gets you 3 MPH and a bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with almost zero effort,
>
> No. A bike gets you 7 or 8 MPH with no effort _provided the terrain
> is flat_. Which is why they work fine in Denk.
Essentially what I meant.
Add any sort of
> slope and you're working the whole time. All of e.g. West
> Philadelphia is a slope. Most of the suburbs have hills and slopes.
Admit it, the downhills have to be some fun.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 12:54:58
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Choking on car fumes?
|
On 26, 10:46 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> >http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/curitibaecocity.htm
>
> Went there and read that and it looks like they got it 99% right.
> I noticed in the few pictures that there were no really fat people
> either so the enforced walking a few blocks to your final destination is
> a good thing too. It appears to be an older article since they referred
> to Los Angeles, 2005, in the future tense.
> Now if we could only get our city planners to spend a week there on a
> working vacation to see how it should be done.
> At least some countries are looking to follow a good example.
> Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots
> at rush hour.
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
I think traffic planners should plan their vacations to Curitiba or
Copenhagen. Not simply Caribbean Cruises.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 14:45:21
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Choking on car fumes?
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 26, 10:46 am, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots
>> at rush hour.
>> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
> I think traffic planners should plan their vacations to Curitiba or
> Copenhagen. Not simply Caribbean Cruises.
>
100% agreement. Nobody ever learned anything on a cruise ship. I can't
imagine spending $5,000 to spend my 2 weeks vacation on a boat....?
Give them an extra week if they spend it hopping known good towns and
taking notes?
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 12:51:14
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 26, 10:20 am, "Amy Blankenship"
Imagine instead that those resources might have
> been directed elsewhere to optimize different modes of transportation.-
That's exactly what I say.
Here I answer some questions...
"1) How big is Sweden, and Denk, and Germany etc."
They are small, but bigger than a county in America. Why doesn't the
county work like them? Perhaps it's because politics are about big
money, and it has little to with what the people want, ie. bicycle
lanes and public transportation.
Or perhaps the whole country is too big, the way the USSR was --in
which case we can only split it apart....
"2) How much of our economy in the US is based on the Auto Industry,
How about the world."
I thought we could move away from 19th Century (oil based) Capitalism
and into 21st Century (hi tech) economy. Much money remains to be made
in "Natural Capitalism," which is also the name of this book...
http://www.natcap.org/
"3) High speed rails have been discussed in this country for years - -
Why hasn't it been done?"
If we ever made a goal, the way going to the Moon was, we wouldn't be
travelling by SUVs --and dilapidated Grayhound WWII buses.
"4)Ever ride a bike in the Winter time and in the dark? So how much of
a season does part of the US get with which to ride a bicycle?"
That's why we are talking here about MULTIM0DAL TRANSPORTATION, not
just bikes. Nevertheless some people do ride in Scandinavia in the
middle of winter. Yet they have excellent public transportation.
"4) Ever ride Mass transit in a northern city?"
I guess it wouldn't be worst than in a southern city, where the sprawl
makes it impractical. Well, that's where the bike kicks in.
|
| |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 10:40:12
From: tonyfranciozi
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
Anyone whose been choked by diesel fumes while passing a bus knows
they're not good for the enviornment. They may be the lesser of two
evils but they are not "good" for the enviornment.
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 08:05:41
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Choking on car fumes?
|
On 23, 8:58 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net > wrote:
> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes. You
> have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
>
> What you are saying seems to indicate that you do not understand the
> fundamental properties of transit. You just want to defend transit by
> denying what is obvious.
Transit has inherent problems if you do it without planning. If we had
POLITICAL WILL, perhaps we could adopt a plan like this...
(not a bad plan for THE REVOLUTION)
Curitiba, Brazil: The Roads Not Taken
Stuck in a traffic jam? Choking on car fumes? Then take the next exit
and head south past the equator to the city of Curitiba, Brazil, where
you can board a bus to a public transit utopia.
By the year 2025, two-thirds of the planet's population will live in
cities, according to the United Nations. And almost all of this growth
- a staggering 90 percent - will take place in countries of the
developing world.
Third World cities usually conjure up images of traffic and pollution,
poverty and shantytowns. But the rekable city of Curitiba in
southern Brazil is trying to paint a different picture. This mid-sized
city of just over one-and-a-half million has become a Mecca for urban
planners, transit officials and environmentalists the world over.
Cities as far flung as Cape Town, Santiago, Lagos, New York, Toronto,
Montreal, Amsterdam and Bogota have come to learn how Curitiba fought
the car congestion and pollution nightes that haunt many, if not
most, of the world's cities.
What's even more rekable is that by most standards, Curitiba is a
poor city. Its annual per capita annual income is under $3,000 (all
figures in U.S. dollars). Yet polls show that residents of Curitiba
love their city and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Visitors call
it one of the most liveable cities anywhere.
...
Seventy-five percent of all city travel is done by transit - the
world's highest usage. But Curitiba didn't ban cars. Over two decades
it gradually made transit cheaper, faster and more convenient than
driving.
Instead of spending money on that huge overpass, the Lerner
administration invested in public transit. And in Curitiba, that meant
buses.
Modern transit usually means subways or light rail trains. But all
Curitiba could afford was a short light rail line that would do little
to solve the overall traffic problem. Buses were the only way to go -
but they would only work if they weren't stuck in traffic. So the
local government set out to create a very fast transit system based on
buses.
This idea has become known worldwide as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Planners decided that existing roads would work just fine and
reallocated them in groups of three: one avenue for traffic into the
city, one avenue for traffic out, and one avenue for a two-way bus-
only road called a canaleta.
more...
http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/curitibaecocity.htm
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 08:46:13
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Choking on car fumes?
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> Seventy-five percent of all city travel is done by transit - the
> world's highest usage. But Curitiba didn't ban cars. Over two decades
> it gradually made transit cheaper, faster and more convenient than
> driving.
>
> Instead of spending money on that huge overpass, the Lerner
> administration invested in public transit. And in Curitiba, that meant
> buses.
>
> Modern transit usually means subways or light rail trains. But all
> Curitiba could afford was a short light rail line that would do little
> to solve the overall traffic problem. Buses were the only way to go -
> but they would only work if they weren't stuck in traffic. So the
> local government set out to create a very fast transit system based on
> buses.
>
> This idea has become known worldwide as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
>
> Planners decided that existing roads would work just fine and
> reallocated them in groups of three: one avenue for traffic into the
> city, one avenue for traffic out, and one avenue for a two-way bus-
> only road called a canaleta.
>
> more...
>
> http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/curitibaecocity.htm
>
Went there and read that and it looks like they got it 99% right.
I noticed in the few pictures that there were no really fat people
either so the enforced walking a few blocks to your final destination is
a good thing too. It appears to be an older article since they referred
to Los Angeles, 2005, in the future tense.
Now if we could only get our city planners to spend a week there on a
working vacation to see how it should be done.
At least some countries are looking to follow a good example.
Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots
at rush hour.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 15:21:39
From: nash
Subject: Re: Choking on car fumes?
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:WPCdndpfeJBpj5XbnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@comcast.com...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> Seventy-five percent of all city travel is done by transit - the
>> world's highest usage. But Curitiba didn't ban cars. Over two decades
>> it gradually made transit cheaper, faster and more convenient than
>> driving.
>>
>> Instead of spending money on that huge overpass, the Lerner
>> administration invested in public transit. And in Curitiba, that meant
>> buses.
>>
>> Modern transit usually means subways or light rail trains. But all
>> Curitiba could afford was a short light rail line that would do little
>> to solve the overall traffic problem. Buses were the only way to go -
>> but they would only work if they weren't stuck in traffic. So the
>> local government set out to create a very fast transit system based on
>> buses.
>>
>> This idea has become known worldwide as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
>>
>> Planners decided that existing roads would work just fine and
>> reallocated them in groups of three: one avenue for traffic into the
>> city, one avenue for traffic out, and one avenue for a two-way bus-
>> only road called a canaleta.
>>
>> more...
>>
>> http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/curitibaecocity.htm
>>
> Went there and read that and it looks like they got it 99% right.
> I noticed in the few pictures that there were no really fat people either
> so the enforced walking a few blocks to your final destination is a good
> thing too. It appears to be an older article since they referred to Los
> Angeles, 2005, in the future tense.
> Now if we could only get our city planners to spend a week there on a
> working vacation to see how it should be done.
> At least some countries are looking to follow a good example.
> Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots at
> rush hour.
> Bill Baka
People here already have to walk a few blocks to the bus stop. I do not
know where
that would not be the case.
4 roads or whatever is not going to cover it. ??? We have shuttles too
that just cover the populated, denser areas like downtown. Always have.
Yours may be a special situation.
Is the pop really small perhaps? You should see a map of the GVRD.
(Greater Vancouver Regional District) Includes at least 10 cities all on
one delta and river valley.
POP may be around 2.7 M but I have been known to be wrong.
Sounds like a great place for a tourist though.
I think free buses is the way to go to get everyone using the bus. They do
it in Sweden don't they? They really need to do something about this LA
haze we are copying.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 19:52:38
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Choking on car fumes?
|
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:WPCdndpfeJBpj5XbnZ2dnUVZ_s6onZ2d@comcast.com...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> Seventy-five percent of all city travel is done by transit - the
>>> world's highest usage. But Curitiba didn't ban cars. Over two decades
>>> it gradually made transit cheaper, faster and more convenient than
>>> driving.
>>>
>>> Instead of spending money on that huge overpass, the Lerner
>>> administration invested in public transit. And in Curitiba, that meant
>>> buses.
>>>
>>> Modern transit usually means subways or light rail trains. But all
>>> Curitiba could afford was a short light rail line that would do little
>>> to solve the overall traffic problem. Buses were the only way to go -
>>> but they would only work if they weren't stuck in traffic. So the
>>> local government set out to create a very fast transit system based on
>>> buses.
>>>
>>> This idea has become known worldwide as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
>>>
>>> Planners decided that existing roads would work just fine and
>>> reallocated them in groups of three: one avenue for traffic into the
>>> city, one avenue for traffic out, and one avenue for a two-way bus-
>>> only road called a canaleta.
>>>
>>> more...
>>>
>>> http://www.sustainabletimes.ca/articles/curitibaecocity.htm
>>>
>> Went there and read that and it looks like they got it 99% right.
>> I noticed in the few pictures that there were no really fat people either
>> so the enforced walking a few blocks to your final destination is a good
>> thing too. It appears to be an older article since they referred to Los
>> Angeles, 2005, in the future tense.
>> Now if we could only get our city planners to spend a week there on a
>> working vacation to see how it should be done.
>> At least some countries are looking to follow a good example.
>> Let's hope the USA will before we are overrun with freeway parking lots at
>> rush hour.
>> Bill Baka
>
> People here already have to walk a few blocks to the bus stop. I do not
> know where
> that would not be the case.
> 4 roads or whatever is not going to cover it. ??? We have shuttles too
> that just cover the populated, denser areas like downtown. Always have.
> Yours may be a special situation.
Yours looks special, specially nice. My situation is probably that of
most American's. I moved out of the city about 5 years ahead of the
surge of people who got the same idea. It was about 10,000 when I moved
here and now it is 35,000, mostly a bedroom community for people who
work in the city 45 miles to the south of here (Sacramento).
> Is the pop really small perhaps? You should see a map of the GVRD.
> (Greater Vancouver Regional District) Includes at least 10 cities all on
> one delta and river valley.
> POP may be around 2.7 M but I have been known to be wrong.
> Sounds like a great place for a tourist though.
This used to be that until unplanned growth messed it up. The local
planners can't see beyond their terms in office, I'm afraid.
> I think free buses is the way to go to get everyone using the bus. They do
> it in Sweden don't they? They really need to do something about this LA
> haze we are copying.
>
>
The LA haze is becoming global. I heard commentators saying things like
even on Mount Everest where you used to be able to see forever there is
now a noticeable haze. Smog has already gone global.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 10:57:32
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On 23, 2:58 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Bill wrote:
>
> >> George Conklin wrote:
> >>> You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
> >>> death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags, strong
> >>> roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or may
> >>> not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are told.
> >>> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
> >> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
> >> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
> >> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
> >> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
> >> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
> >> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
> >> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
> >> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
> >> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
> >> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
> >> a little too far.
>
> > Defensive driving is the answer but you have to learn to do that.
>
> > Graham
>
> Situational awareness!
> Something Americans lack. My granddaughter (by way of stepdaughter) has
> wrecked 3 cars, all by rear ending another and all while yapping on her
> cell phone. Now her mom wants to buy her a bigger car or pickup truck.
> Why? She'll wind up killing someone in a smaller car.
> It seems to be an American thing.
> Me, I like sticks and the lost art of double clutching down shifts,
> whilst my wife thinks I don't know what I'm doing.
> Some know and enjoy, some will never have a clue.
> Bill Baka-
I think you have become a sort of black sheep. Usually people don't
try to get better but get bigger. But if you kill someone as a
consequence, hey, it's their own damned fault for driving something
small! :(
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:37:14
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 23, 2:58 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Situational awareness!
>> Something Americans lack. My granddaughter (by way of stepdaughter) has
>> wrecked 3 cars, all by rear ending another and all while yapping on her
>> cell phone. Now her mom wants to buy her a bigger car or pickup truck.
>> Why? She'll wind up killing someone in a smaller car.
>> It seems to be an American thing.
>> Me, I like sticks and the lost art of double clutching down shifts,
>> whilst my wife thinks I don't know what I'm doing.
>> Some know and enjoy, some will never have a clue.
>> Bill Baka-
>
> I think you have become a sort of black sheep. Usually people don't
> try to get better but get bigger. But if you kill someone as a
> consequence, hey, it's their own damned fault for driving something
> small! :(
>
>
Around town I prefer the stick and 4 cylinder and try to keep to the
lower speed roads, just like on the bike. On the highway or moving
something big I prefer my 1966 Chrysler because it is in it's element
and just loafing along, unlike my 4 banger which is buzzing and
vibrating down the road. Once I get my old boat up to speed it is a much
nicer ride than any small car and I can milk it for up to 15 MPG or go
past 140 MPH with ease (scratch the mileage). I only use the big car for
long mostly highway trips over 100 miles and going into a real city area
where I don't want to be the smaller car. Other than that the gas
guzzler stays parked unless I need to haul a big trailer or something
out of the ordinary. For me it's the bike unless a car is absolutely
needed for something.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:56:30
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: cell phones and masturbating are outlawed in Europe
|
On 23, 3:22 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
I think cell phones and masturbating are outlawed in Europe. They try
to stay away from distracting activities, you know. Both are better
kept for the home.
NBA PLAYER EDDIE GRIFFIN MASTURBATING WHILE DRIVING; CAUSED CRASH
On ch 30, Minnesota Timberwolves center Eddie Griffin was drunk and
masturbating when he crashed his luxury SUV into a parked Suburban
outside a store in Minneapolis, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday
by the man whose Suburban was hit in the crash.
Several of the 911 callers that night said Griffin was drunk. One
witness said Griffin told him he was watching pornography in a DVD
player mounted on the dashboard of his Cadillac Escalade SUV when he
struck a Chevy Suburban parked on University Avenue Southeas
Abed Hassuneh, who is the brother of the victim, said Griffin told
him, "That he was masturbating himself going down that street. That's
how the accident happened because he was not paying attention. He's
paying attention to that video and all of a sudden he's shoveled
somebody's car on the top of the sidewalk."
http://concreteloop.com/2006/06/eddie-griffin-porn-crash
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:47:26
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On 23, 1:01 pm, krho...@maine.rr.com (Kevin Rhodes) wrote:
> In article <RRkMh.129962$_73.122...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "George
>
> Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.53...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>
> >> Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>
> > Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
> >rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out
> >lie.
>
> What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever comparable
> metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate. I would bet that the
> accident rate in Europe is MUCH lower than in the US. In Europe, if you have
> an accident at speed on a highway you are more likely to die in that accident
> - higher speeds and smaller cars. Simple fact is while there are fewer
> accidents on the German Autobahn, when there is one people generally die.
>
> I've driven on the Autobahn, and while I wouldn't call it relaxing, I felt
> safer driving 125mph there than I do at 55mph on Rt128 around Boston.
>
> It truly amazes me that so many boneheads here in the US manage to kill
> themselves and each other while driving so slowly.
>
> I would say that I see more low-speed dumbass fenderbenders in a week while
> commuting in the Boston area than I saw total in the many months I have lived
> in London, Budapest, and Vienna.
Because what really kills is THE SPEED DIFFERENTIAL combined with lane
indiscipline. And then there's THE SIZE DIFFERENTIAL, in which the big
and stupid usually comes out on top. And last the cell phone and other
trivial pursuits.
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:40:55
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Who brought up some info about Sweden?
|
I saw some interesting info someone posted about the policy Sweden
established toward traffic safety, but I lost track of it. Was it in
this forum? Thanks!
|
| | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 20:26:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: Who brought up some info about Sweden?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174678855.313709.65380@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I saw some interesting info someone posted about the policy Sweden
> established toward traffic safety, but I lost track of it. Was it in
> this forum? Thanks!
>
Not Sweden but BC is going to start charging when 4 WD and SUVs tear up the
parkland they vacation on. up to $100,000 that's gotta hurt hahaha
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 13:41:22
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On 22, 4:21 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> > You still haven't posted a cite for your statistics. "your ass" does
> > not count as a credible source.
>
> > nate
>
> Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American drivers
> are much better behaved than at home." So there. And the EU accident data
> is from one of their own reports. I suggest you grow up.-
"When in Rome do as the Romans." And we are not attacking the Romans,
but Rome.
Figure it out. ;)
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 12:13:22
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: a war on drugs, but not a war on gas?
|
Here's a T-shirt on this war...
"Face your addiction. It makes you fat, pollutes and puts others in
danger. But you are in recovery now."
(you also practice that philosophy of "MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR"...a war fed
by SUVs and other addicts)
http://www.zazzle.com/product/235238468340112921
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 11:40:15
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: a war on drugs, but not a war on gas?
|
On 21, 6:58 pm, BiffB <u...@domain.invalid > wrote:
> > And that crappy situation, where mass transit is far from you and
> > extremely inconvenient, is a consequence of the government subsidizing
> > cheap gas and roads in various hidden ways. If gas was closer to its
> > real price, suburbia wouldn't spread like crazy, and mass transit
> > would be more convenient.
>
> > -Gniewko
>
> well, 20 years ago, this wasn't suburbia, it was a farming community. If
> gas were closer to it's real price it would be about 50 cents a gallon
> cheaper. Also, you may notice that the people who drive the SUVs
> actually pay more in taxes than you every time the fill up.- Hide quoted text -
If ihuana were sold at its real price, it would be sold for 5cents
the joint. But since there's a war on drugs, but not a war on gas,
everything is upside down. And addiction for addiction, I think the
grass is better. ;)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:43:50
From: Bill
Subject: Re: a war on drugs, but not a war on gas?
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 21, 6:58 pm, BiffB <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> And that crappy situation, where mass transit is far from you and
>>> extremely inconvenient, is a consequence of the government subsidizing
>>> cheap gas and roads in various hidden ways. If gas was closer to its
>>> real price, suburbia wouldn't spread like crazy, and mass transit
>>> would be more convenient.
>>> -Gniewko
>> well, 20 years ago, this wasn't suburbia, it was a farming community. If
>> gas were closer to it's real price it would be about 50 cents a gallon
>> cheaper. Also, you may notice that the people who drive the SUVs
>> actually pay more in taxes than you every time the fill up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> If ihuana were sold at its real price, it would be sold for 5cents
> the joint. But since there's a war on drugs, but not a war on gas,
> everything is upside down. And addiction for addiction, I think the
> grass is better. ;)
>
It isn't an addiction, to smoke pot, just an optional herbal that has
gotten a bad rap. If the government had found a way to tax it and sell
it in liquor stores to the over 21 crowd they could make a hell of a lot
of money on sales tax. Alcohol tends to be an addicting habit, as I
found our before I decided to stop about 5 years ago.
Tobacco is really addicting and kills people.
I can't imagine anyone being able to smoke enough pot to hurt their lungs.
I use it at bedtime and sleep just fine, yet if I run out it isn't like
tobacco or nicotine and I start Jones'in for another fix.
Put the same laws on it's use as alcohol is now and we might save some
money and put some gangs out of business.
That would make for more safe places to ride.
Re: Gas prices. If the gas is over $3.00/gallon why are the oil
executives making record profits???
That money should be dumped into new and better refineries.
Iraq and the money spent on it could have financed a lot of alternative
energy sources, but you all know where Bush has 'HIS' priorities.
Bill Baka
Sorry about the long post.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 19:31:59
From: nash
Subject: Re: a war on drugs, but not a war on gas?
|
real price
<<<<<<<<<<<<
real price being what $150 / barrel
I agree.
I brought this up a year ago and no one believed me, hardly
I wish the true cost of oil was already here. It is like we are getting
credit from Mother Nature and we never intend on paying it back. Then it
will be all we can do just to pay the interest and oil could cost
$1000/barrel cause oil sands is all we will have left.
I wish.
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:45:25
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On 21, 8:20 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" <88.53...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>
> > Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>
> Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
> rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out
> lie.
So the idea of SUVs zigzaging around cars, phone in hand, looks to you
like good driving? Tell you something, even me driving on a six pack
of beer wouldn't be so dangerous. ;)
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:42:19
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: waiting for a miracle
|
On 21, 3:20 pm, "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote:
> > Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
> > maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
>
> You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
> the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
> people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
> cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
> choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
>
> And, people don't use things just because they're subsidized. People
> use things because it makes the most sense for them. Look at
> condoms. They can be gotten for free from a number of sources, but
> people don't use them even in the face of the theat of HIV. Lots of
> kids and other people don't use any form of birth control -- which can
> also be obtained for little or no cost -- even in the face of
> pregnancy. Do people have more kids just to take advantage of the tax
> credit for them? Of course not.
>
> Bikes are great for some people. But for the vast majority of people
> they are pretty impractical. But if you like it and it works for you,
> bike-on.-
It ain't so easy as you paint it. First of all, me choosing to "bike
on" entails an enormous risk, unnecessary for the most part to both
the bike and me. I'd say the government has allowed such a Darwinistic
state of affairs, where the little and frugal don't count, in order to
encourage people into ever bigger vehicles, just to be "safe." And
they ain't safe either as SUVs, being "trucks," don't need to meet
safety standards mandated for cars, and roll over quite often.
Meanwhile BIKE LANES are notoriously absent in the places where they
are needed most, like where the poor, who can hardly afford a jalopy,
can take advantage of an efficient bike.
And then comes the issue of bike facilities, like lockers and racks.
The few places that offer them, don't give you any security. Even a
camera would do, but they choose to ignore it. It just happened to me
at this popular place I go to, where the they stole my bike. It
happens that the bike rack is in a dark area with no security of any
kind. I complained and they just shrugged their shoulders. And since
bikes are forbidden inside this place, now I just sneak in my new
bicycle...
So all odds are stacked against the monkey on the bike. See, peanuts
are not important to the lion, who prefers the juicy meat. In the
meantime the monkeys are waiting, perhaps for a miracle, like Jesus
coming from the sky on a bicycle. Or for THE REVOLUTION, which I hope
is coming soon.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 16:50:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: waiting for a miracle
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174578139.877598.11600@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 21, 3:20 pm, "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>> > Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
>> > maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
>>
>> You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
>> the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
>> people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
>> cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
>> choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
>>
>> And, people don't use things just because they're subsidized. People
>> use things because it makes the most sense for them. Look at
>> condoms. They can be gotten for free from a number of sources, but
>> people don't use them even in the face of the theat of HIV. Lots of
>> kids and other people don't use any form of birth control -- which can
>> also be obtained for little or no cost -- even in the face of
>> pregnancy. Do people have more kids just to take advantage of the tax
>> credit for them? Of course not.
>>
>> Bikes are great for some people. But for the vast majority of people
>> they are pretty impractical. But if you like it and it works for you,
>> bike-on.-
>
> It ain't so easy as you paint it. First of all, me choosing to "bike
> on" entails an enormous risk, unnecessary for the most part to both
> the bike and me. I'd say the government has allowed such a Darwinistic
> state of affairs, where the little and frugal don't count, in order to
> encourage people into ever bigger vehicles, just to be "safe." And
> they ain't safe either as SUVs, being "trucks," don't need to meet
> safety standards mandated for cars, and roll over quite often.
> Meanwhile BIKE LANES are notoriously absent in the places where they
> are needed most, like where the poor, who can hardly afford a jalopy,
> can take advantage of an efficient bike.
>
> And then comes the issue of bike facilities, like lockers and racks.
> The few places that offer them, don't give you any security. Even a
> camera would do, but they choose to ignore it. It just happened to me
> at this popular place I go to, where the they stole my bike. It
> happens that the bike rack is in a dark area with no security of any
> kind. I complained and they just shrugged their shoulders. And since
> bikes are forbidden inside this place, now I just sneak in my new
> bicycle...
>
> So all odds are stacked against the monkey on the bike. See, peanuts
> are not important to the lion, who prefers the juicy meat. In the
> meantime the monkeys are waiting, perhaps for a miracle, like Jesus
> coming from the sky on a bicycle. Or for THE REVOLUTION, which I hope
> is coming soon.
I can relate okay but we are outnumbered. The popular place keeps making
money without you and because not enough bikers complain about it. Arrogant
too.
I brought my bike into a grocery store here and they just never asked me to
leave.
A drugstore though said because of insurance policys I could not do that and
a museum I tried too. If they do not have security for you do not go there
in protest maybe.
They also try to get employers to arrange for showers and lockers for biking
employees around Clean Air week but how many are successful for the last few
years are probably next to nil I bet because of not enough cyclists.
The only positive thing I have seen for cleaner air is the Prime Minister
finally giving a credit back to people who buy bus passes every month. too
little too late, I retired already. For Kyoto though I think it will work.
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 18:51:12
From: Pat
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
On 21, 8:20 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:1174508433.206206.5790@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 21, 2:34 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 21, 12:02 am, lube...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
> > > > > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
>
> > > > Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
> > > > has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
> > > > insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
> > > > ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
> > > > pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
> > > > things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
> > > > made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
> > > > companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
> > > > beautiful indeed.
>
> > > Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
> > > Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
>
> > > Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
> > > maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
>
> > You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
> > the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
> > people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
> > cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
> > choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
>
> Given a choice, people would have remained in rural areas, but now we are
> abandoning the rural areas and concentrating in cities.
Not me. I'm happy to continue to be here out in the middle of
nowhere. I figure out why anyone would want to live in NYC or the
equivalent. Buildings are just too tall once they go over about 2
stories.
I think it's just bizarre how "everyone" says they want to live in a
city when in reality everyone gets the heck out and live in the
suburbs and have a weekend house in the country. And that begets
sprawl.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:17:24
From: Bill
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
Pat wrote:
> On 21, 8:20 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174508433.206206.5790@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 21, 2:34 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 21, 12:02 am, lube...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
>>>>>> dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
>>>>> Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
>>>>> has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
>>>>> insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
>>>>> ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
>>>>> pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
>>>>> things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
>>>>> made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
>>>>> companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
>>>>> beautiful indeed.
>>>> Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
>>>> Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
>>>> Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
>>>> maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
>>> You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
>>> the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
>>> people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
>>> cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
>>> choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
>> Given a choice, people would have remained in rural areas, but now we are
>> abandoning the rural areas and concentrating in cities.
>
> Not me. I'm happy to continue to be here out in the middle of
> nowhere. I figure out why anyone would want to live in NYC or the
> equivalent. Buildings are just too tall once they go over about 2
> stories.
>
> I think it's just bizarre how "everyone" says they want to live in a
> city when in reality everyone gets the heck out and live in the
> suburbs and have a weekend house in the country. And that begets
> sprawl.
>
That sounds like Silicon valley. Nobody wants to live there but you have
to work there because that is where the money jobs are. The problem is
that all the business congestion has made 'fixer uppers' over a half
million dollars, and decent ones are about a $million. I have seen
really nice ones back in the hills for up to about $11 million.
Pay a million or commute or flip burgers.
What a choice.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 13:20:33
From: Pat
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
On 21, 2:34 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> On 21, 12:02 am, lube...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
> > > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
>
> > Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
> > has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
> > insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
> > ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
> > pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
> > things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
> > made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
> > companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
> > beautiful indeed.
>
> Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
> Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
>
> Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
> maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
And, people don't use things just because they're subsidized. People
use things because it makes the most sense for them. Look at
condoms. They can be gotten for free from a number of sources, but
people don't use them even in the face of the theat of HIV. Lots of
kids and other people don't use any form of birth control -- which can
also be obtained for little or no cost -- even in the face of
pregnancy. Do people have more kids just to take advantage of the tax
credit for them? Of course not.
Bikes are great for some people. But for the vast majority of people
they are pretty impractical. But if you like it and it works for you,
bike-on.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 00:27:25
From: Dan
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in
news:1174508433.206206.5790@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>> > > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
>> > > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
>>
>> > Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
>> > has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
>> > insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
>> > ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
>> > pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
>> > things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
>> > made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
>> > companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
>> > beautiful indeed.
>> Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
>> Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
>>
>> Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
>> maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
> You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
> the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
> people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
> cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
> choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
In Europe, the town centers are not the crime centers, so you can live
there safely. Also, many offices tend not to be down town, but off in the
forest where it's pretty.
> And, people don't use things just because they're subsidized. People
> use things because it makes the most sense for them. Look at
> condoms. They can be gotten for free from a number of sources, but
> people don't use them even in the face of the theat of HIV. Lots of
> kids and other people don't use any form of birth control -- which can
> also be obtained for little or no cost -- even in the face of
> pregnancy. Do people have more kids just to take advantage of the tax
> credit for them? Of course not.
Maybe they think the quality of life has gotten so bad, that they don't
care if they die from doing the only thing that's fun. I've seen a lot of
teens who don't care anymore. It's what has spawned the anarchist teen
culture in Europe.
I don't need condoms for spiritual reasons that preclude using other
people merely for sex.
> Bikes are great for some people. But for the vast majority of people
> they are pretty impractical. But if you like it and it works for you,
> bike-on.
It's not the bicycle that is impractical, but the car culture that is in
their way, correct?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 01:20:39
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1174508433.206206.5790@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 21, 2:34 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 21, 12:02 am, lube...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
> > > > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
> >
> > > Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
> > > has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
> > > insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
> > > ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
> > > pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
> > > things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
> > > made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
> > > companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
> > > beautiful indeed.
> >
> > Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
> > Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
> >
> > Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
> > maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
>
> You've got cause and effect wrong. People don't drive cars because
> the gov't subsidizes roads. The government builds roads because
> people drive cars. Given a choice, most people prefer to NOT live in
> cities -- especially the downtowns. Wait a minute. People DO have a
> choice and they DO chose not to live in downtowns.
Given a choice, people would have remained in rural areas, but now we are
abandoning the rural areas and concentrating in cities.
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 12:34:12
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
On 21, 12:02 am, lube...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
> > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
>
> Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
> has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
> insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
> ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
> pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
> things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
> made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
> companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
> beautiful indeed.
Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
|
| | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 00:18:57
From: Dan
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:1174505651.998772.76180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>> > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
>> > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
>> Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
>> has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
>> insane suburban sprawl. So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
>> ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
>> pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
>> things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
>> made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
>> companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
>> beautiful indeed.
> Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
> Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
Ron Paul for President!
> Tough luck. It seems nobody thinks about the simple guy anymore. Or
> maybe they get paid to look the other way. :(
True. They are selling out America to the globalists for bribes.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 01:18:34
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174505651.998772.76180@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 21, 12:02 am, lube...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Wrong. It looks horrible because the population of the US isn't
> > > dense enough to make it work. This is a *gig* country.
> >
> > Right. And the population isn't dense enough, because the government
> > has for so many years subsidized cheap gas and roads, triggering
> > insane suburban sprawl.
This is pure nonsense. The population overall is de-sprawling,
concentraing in FEWER and FEWER places, closer and closer together.
So now instead of a pleasant walk or bicycle
> > ride to work each morning, you have to buy a car, pay for insurance,
> > pay for gas, and sit for hours in traffic. And to pay for all those
> > things you have to work even harder. A crappy government policy has
> > made you a stressed wage slave, and made tons of money for car
> > companies, insurance companies, and oil companies. America the
> > beautiful indeed.
>
> Does anyone running for the White House with these ideas? How about
> Congress? Well, at least for commissioner or bicycle coordinator.
>
The population is concentrating in just a few places these days, with
half of the counties losing population. If we were to move people back to
the patterns of 50 years ago, we would require MORE transportation than
today. Stop lying to us.
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 10:09:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is a negation of democracy
|
On 19, 6:59 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> > And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
> > Hail the Fuhrer!
>
> Ok, Hitler like bicycles.
I don't think you read right. The Fuhrer hated bikes because
corporations (just like here) had a big say in policy and because
bicycles weren't good for war. But if you don't like to say that the
exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism, you must admit that it's a
negation of democracy. A real democracy would promote bicycles, or at
least it would allow those who want to do so do it safely by providing
bicycle facilities.
Hitler though wasn't alone...
"When you think of Ford, you think of baseball and apple pie," said
Miriam Kleinman, a researcher with the Washington law firm of Cohen,
Millstein and Hausfeld, who spent weeks examining records at the
National Archives in an attempt to build a slave labor case against
the Dearborn-based company. "You don't think of Hitler having a
portrait of Henry Ford on his office wall in Munich."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/nov98/nazicars30.htm
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 15:02:49
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is a negation of democracy
|
On 20 2007 10:09:42 -0700, "donquijote1954"
<nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote:
>The Fuhrer hated bikes because
>corporations (just like here) had a big say in policy and because
>bicycles weren't good for war.
Not to intrude in your fantasy life, but the above is simply not true.
Bicycles were used in war on both sides during WW II. Not that there
is much on Hitler's attitude, one way or the other, except in a Monty
Python skit which I don't remember well.
Folding bikes and bikes that could arguably be called the early
forerunners of mountain bikes were among those used. I don't know if
they were ever actually used, but they also had paratroopers equipped
with folding bikes.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 09:35:05
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism in action
|
On 19, 6:59 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174334169.496804.150940@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17, 10:48 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > george conklin wrote:
> > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > george conklin wrote:
>
> > > > >> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I
> first
> > > > >> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe.
>
> > > > > I rather doubt that.
>
> > > > That is because you are ignorant.
>
> > > No it's because you're an utter prick.
>
> > > Here's my figures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
>
> > > Where are yours ?
>
> > > Graham
>
> > >From the above link I went to this other link, surely very interesting
> > for cyclists...
>
> > "With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the
> > increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle
> > users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated
> > efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate
> > motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the
> > National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of
> > private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this
> > goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle
> > traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to
> > the attainment of mass-motorisation."
>
> > And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
> > Hail the Fuhrer!
>
> Ok, Hitler like bicycles. According to the EU site, your death rate on a
> bicycle is 40 times higher than in a car.-
Would you care to provide a source, or it comes straight from the
Ministry of Propaganda?
|
| | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 00:13:08
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism in action
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174408505.266237.112270@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 19, 6:59 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1174334169.496804.150940@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 17, 10:48 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > george conklin wrote:
> > > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > george conklin wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I
> > first
> > > > > >> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in
Europe.
> >
> > > > > > I rather doubt that.
> >
> > > > > That is because you are ignorant.
> >
> > > > No it's because you're an utter prick.
> >
> > > > Here's my figures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
> >
> > > > Where are yours ?
> >
> > > > Graham
> >
> > > >From the above link I went to this other link, surely very
interesting
> > > for cyclists...
> >
> > > "With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the
> > > increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle
> > > users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated
> > > efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate
> > > motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the
> > > National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of
> > > private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this
> > > goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle
> > > traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to
> > > the attainment of mass-motorisation."
> >
> > > And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
> > > Hail the Fuhrer!
> >
> > Ok, Hitler like bicycles. According to the EU site, your death rate
on a
> > bicycle is 40 times higher than in a car.-
>
> Would you care to provide a source, or it comes straight from the
> Ministry of Propaganda?
>
No, it is one of the offical reports I located in .pdf format. So I can't
cut and paste the exact lines, and the reference is on my computer at the
cabin. But it is official, as far as I could tell.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 09:50:42
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism in action
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:oM_Lh.129621$_73.6103@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174408505.266237.112270@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> On 19, 6:59 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:1174334169.496804.150940@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On 17, 10:48 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > george conklin wrote:
>> > > > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > > > > message
>> > > > > > george conklin wrote:
>> >
>> > > > > >> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When
>> > > > > >> I
>> > first
>> > > > > >> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in
> Europe.
>> >
>> > > > > > I rather doubt that.
>> >
>> > > > > That is because you are ignorant.
>> >
>> > > > No it's because you're an utter prick.
>> >
>> > > > Here's my figures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
>> >
>> > > > Where are yours ?
>> >
>> > > > Graham
>> >
>> > > >From the above link I went to this other link, surely very
> interesting
>> > > for cyclists...
>> >
>> > > "With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the
>> > > increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of
>> > > bicycle
>> > > users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated
>> > > efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate
>> > > motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the
>> > > National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of
>> > > private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this
>> > > goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle
>> > > traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to
>> > > the attainment of mass-motorisation."
>> >
>> > > And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
>> > > Hail the Fuhrer!
>> >
>> > Ok, Hitler like bicycles. According to the EU site, your death rate
> on a
>> > bicycle is 40 times higher than in a car.-
>>
>> Would you care to provide a source, or it comes straight from the
>> Ministry of Propaganda?
>>
> No, it is one of the offical reports I located in .pdf format. So I can't
> cut and paste the exact lines, and the reference is on my computer at the
> cabin. But it is official, as far as I could tell.
There's a tool whenever you have a pdf open in reader, I think it looks like
a T or an A that allows you to select and copy text.
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 09:32:09
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: MOST DANGEROUS DRIVING HABITS
|
On 18, 5:42 pm, "Fred G. Mackey" <nos...@dont.spam > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On 16, 6:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:45FB095B.E5E1AFB2@hotmail.com...
>
> > Sorry to say you are wrong. Dead wrong. Something like 25,000 people
> > would be saved if we were as safe as Sweden.
>
> Ah, but Sweden is NOT representative of Europe as a whole.
>
> > And if you prefer
> > something less exotic, even our best partner in crime, the UK, has a
> > very safe record.
>
> I guess we need lots of speed cameras, right-hand drive in our cars, and
> to switch to driving on the left side of the raod then
>
>
>
> > I can research the stats if you want, but I can advance you that
> > DRIVING FAST ON THE RIGHT LANE (great danger to cycllists) and TALKING
> > ON THE PHONE (an even greater danger to cyclists) top the list of MOST
> > DANGEROUS DRIVING HABITS...
>
> Actually, someone on another group claimed the other day that the top 5
> causes for accidents involving injuries (or fatalities) were:
>
> 31% Inattention
> 17% Excessive speed
> 16% Emerging from minor road/driveway without care
> 09% Excess alcohol or drugs
> 07% Turning right without care
>
> I'll see if I can get him to provide a specific cite, but he claimed
> those figures came from a 2005 report in the UK.
>
> The discussion was OT for the other group and the thread soon died out,
> but I argued that most of those could more properly be classified as
> incompetent drivers.
I won't argue the other stuff, but I'd say I endorse your last
statement, only that there's A LOT OF RECKLESS DRIVING, that could be
addressed by enforcement. The day I see the authorities cracking down
on phone use, I'd consider it a serious effort to stop the carnage and
mayhem.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 12:56:09
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism in action
|
On 17, 10:48 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> george conklin wrote:
> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > george conklin wrote:
>
> > >> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I first
> > >> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe.
>
> > > I rather doubt that.
>
> > That is because you are ignorant.
>
> No it's because you're an utter prick.
>
> Here's my figures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
>
> Where are yours ?
>
> Graham
>From the above link I went to this other link, surely very interesting
for cyclists...
"With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the
increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle
users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated
efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate
motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the
National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of
private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this
goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle
traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to
the attainment of mass-motorisation."
And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
Hail the Fuhrer!
http://www.kaosenlared.net/img2/2006a/22061_bush_fuhrer.jpg
(much more info about bike lanes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_lane
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 22:59:15
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism in action
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174334169.496804.150940@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 17, 10:48 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > george conklin wrote:
> > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > george conklin wrote:
> >
> > > >> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I
first
> > > >> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe.
> >
> > > > I rather doubt that.
> >
> > > That is because you are ignorant.
> >
> > No it's because you're an utter prick.
> >
> > Here's my figures.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
> >
> > Where are yours ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> >From the above link I went to this other link, surely very interesting
> for cyclists...
>
> "With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the
> increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle
> users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated
> efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate
> motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the
> National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of
> private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this
> goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle
> traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to
> the attainment of mass-motorisation."
>
> And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
> Hail the Fuhrer!
Ok, Hitler like bicycles. According to the EU site, your death rate on a
bicycle is 40 times higher than in a car.
|
| | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 09:51:56
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: exclusion of cycle traffic is Nazism in action
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:7BELh.11616$PL.11364@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174334169.496804.150940@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> "With the advent of the motor car, conflict arose between the
>> increasingly powerful car lobby and the existing population of bicycle
>> users. By the 1920s and 1930s the UK and German car lobbies initiated
>> efforts to have cyclists removed from the roads so as to facilitate
>> motorists and improve the convenience of motoring. In Germany, the
>> National Socialist regime was committed to promoting the mass use of
>> private motor cars and viewed the bicycle as an impediment to this
>> goal. For the National Socialist authorities, the exclusion of cycle
>> traffic from main routes was viewed as an important pre-requisite to
>> the attainment of mass-motorisation."
>>
>> And I see that Nazism is very much alive.
>> Hail the Fuhrer!
>
> Ok, Hitler like bicycles. According to the EU site, your death rate on a
> bicycle is 40 times higher than in a car.
Actually, the Nazis took the bikes from the Dutch in WWII to break their
spirits.
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 12:21:52
From: Motorhead Lawyer
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote:
> We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
--
C.R. Krieger
(Wondering why BMW didn't finish higher in Oz.)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 01:20:49
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
> > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>
> Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out
lie.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 17:01:19
From: Kevin Rhodes
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <RRkMh.129962$_73.122030@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "George
Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>>
>> Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>
> Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
>rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out
>lie.
>
>
What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever comparable
metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate. I would bet that the
accident rate in Europe is MUCH lower than in the US. In Europe, if you have
an accident at speed on a highway you are more likely to die in that accident
- higher speeds and smaller cars. Simple fact is while there are fewer
accidents on the German Autobahn, when there is one people generally die.
I've driven on the Autobahn, and while I wouldn't call it relaxing, I felt
safer driving 125mph there than I do at 55mph on Rt128 around Boston.
It truly amazes me that so many boneheads here in the US manage to kill
themselves and each other while driving so slowly.
I would say that I see more low-speed dumbass fenderbenders in a week while
commuting in the Boston area than I saw total in the many months I have lived
in London, Budapest, and Vienna.
Kevin Rhodes
Live in Maine, work outside Boston during the week
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 20:09:26
From: Jeremy Parker
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Kevin Rhodes" <krhodes@maine.rr.com > wrote
[snip]
> What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever
> comparable
> metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate.
[snip]
As with the USA, in fact more so, it depends on where you are. Here
in Britain London has lots of accidents, but they tend to be only
fender benders. Car insurance rates are expensive. At the other
extreme is the Dumfries and Galloway district on southern Scotland.
Empty rural roads, but when two cars do collide, people die.
I seem to recall that the most dangerous road in Europe is the main
road along Portugal's southern coast. It is gradually being
upgraded, and varies, frequently and unpredictably, between little
old rural road, and superhighway
Jeremy Parker
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 21:18:26
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Jeremy Parker" <JeremyParker@compuserve.com > wrote in message
news:eu6hft$l0s$1$830fa17d@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Kevin Rhodes" <krhodes@maine.rr.com> wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> > What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever
> > comparable
> > metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate.
>
> [snip]
>
> As with the USA, in fact more so, it depends on where you are. Here
> in Britain London has lots of accidents, but they tend to be only
> fender benders. Car insurance rates are expensive. At the other
> extreme is the Dumfries and Galloway district on southern Scotland.
> Empty rural roads, but when two cars do collide, people die.
>
> I seem to recall that the most dangerous road in Europe is the main
> road along Portugal's southern coast. It is gradually being
> upgraded, and varies, frequently and unpredictably, between little
> old rural road, and superhighway
>
> Jeremy Parker
>
>
In general, rural highways are the most dangerous, as you indicate. In the
USA, historically the data have been broken down by overall rates, rural
highways, urban and interstates.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:55:08
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Kevin Rhodes wrote:
> In Europe, if you have an accident at speed on a highway you are more likely to
> die in that accident - higher speeds and smaller cars.
I doubt that in fact. For starters most Europeans actually wear their seat belts.
Graham
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:08:08
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4604228C.E08F7552@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Kevin Rhodes wrote:
>
> > In Europe, if you have an accident at speed on a highway you are more
likely to
> > die in that accident - higher speeds and smaller cars.
>
> I doubt that in fact. For starters most Europeans actually wear their seat
belts.
>
> Graham
>
93% locally wear them here.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:08:52
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > Kevin Rhodes wrote:
> >
> > > In Europe, if you have an accident at speed on a highway you are more
> > > likely to die in that accident - higher speeds and smaller cars.
> >
> > I doubt that in fact. For starters most Europeans actually wear their seat
> > belts.
>
> 93% locally wear them here.
That's still a lower rate than here.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 07:25:20
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>George Conklin wrote:
>> "Eeyore" wrote
>> > Kevin Rhodes wrote:
>> >
>> > > In Europe, if you have an accident at speed on a highway you are more
>> > > likely to die in that accident - higher speeds and smaller cars.
>> >
>> > I doubt that in fact. For starters most Europeans actually wear their seat
>> > belts.
>>
>> 93% locally wear them here.
>
>That's still a lower rate than here.
As with most of your assertions, you're wrong.... and not just subtly
wrong, you're FAR off-base with your claim.
http://www.etsc.be/documents/Fact_Sheet_Seat_Belt_Use_2006.pdf
Country Wearing rate,
front seats (%) rear seats (%)
Austria 77 56
Belgium 66 not available
Cyprus n/a n/a
Czech Republic 75 n/a
Denk 84 63
Estonia 75 21
Finland 89 80
France 97 68
Germany 94 90
Greece 40 (2003) 15 (2003)
Hungary 59 20 (2003)
Ireland 85 (2003) 46 (adults, 2003)
Italy n/a n/a
Latvia n/a n/a
Lithuania n/a n/a
Luxembourg 88 72
Malta 95 43
Netherlands 86 (2003) 63 (2003)
Poland 71 49
Portugal 88 25
Slovakia n/a n/a
Slovenia 81 40
Spain 86 (2003) 42 (2003)
Sweden 92 79
UK 93 83
Data from 2004 (except where noted).
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:19:24
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Kevin Rhodes" <krhodes@maine.rr.com > wrote in message
news:4603f9d2$0$24712$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> In article <RRkMh.129962$_73.122030@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"George
> Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
> >>
> >> Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
> >
> > Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
> >rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a
flat-out
> >lie.
> >
> >
>
> What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever
comparable
> metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate.
Deaths are what is normall used. Actually I'd like to see both controlled
for urban and rural driving, which the raw figures are not.
I would bet that the
> accident rate in Europe is MUCH lower than in the US.
You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags, strong
roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or may
not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are told.
But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:22:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:MSUMh.14323$PL.9508@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kevin Rhodes" <krhodes@maine.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4603f9d2$0$24712$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> In article <RRkMh.129962$_73.122030@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "George
>> Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> >> On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>> >>
>> >> Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>> >
>> > Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU
>> > death
>> >rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a
> flat-out
>> >lie.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever
> comparable
>> metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate.
>
> Deaths are what is normall used. Actually I'd like to see both
> controlled
> for urban and rural driving, which the raw figures are not.
>
>
>
> I would bet that the
>> accident rate in Europe is MUCH lower than in the US.
>
> You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
> death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags, strong
> roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or
> may
> not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are
> told.
> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>
In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
Anti skid should work on ice. If you are not fish tailing you are not going
to hit other drivers and cement dividers.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:18:10
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
nash wrote:
> "George Conklin" wrote
> >
> > But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>
> In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60 ($120) and 3
penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum for speeding). 12 points =
licence suspension btw. The 'points' expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite
sure, I've never had any.
> Anti skid should work on ice.
Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should test it in such
conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do so). It simply 'pumps' the
brakes as it's supposed to.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 08:17:40
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > writes:
>nash wrote:
>> "George Conklin" wrote
>> > But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the
>> > real world.
>> In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
>No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60
>($120) and 3 penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum
>for speeding). 12 points = licence suspension btw. The 'points'
>expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite sure, I've never had any.
Although they didn't actually need any specific laws for it; the
matter being covered in other aspects as it is/was in Germany. In
the latter, people get booked for eating and drinking (anything)
while driving. driving being any time while the vehicle is in
traffic, so even when stopped at the lights.
>> Anti skid should work on ice.
>Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should
>test it in such conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do
>so). It simply 'pumps' the brakes as it's supposed to.
Well you're in the (probably) 5% of car owners who read the manual
at least once. Perhaps you're also in the 0.5% who try out the jack
and other tools before you need them.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 11:26:11
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au > wrote in message
news:4mrgd4x7gd.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
> >nash wrote:
> >> "George Conklin" wrote
>
> >> > But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the
> >> > real world.
>
> >> In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
>
> >No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60
> >($120) and 3 penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum
> >for speeding). 12 points = licence suspension btw. The 'points'
> >expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite sure, I've never had any.
>
> Although they didn't actually need any specific laws for it; the
> matter being covered in other aspects as it is/was in Germany. In
> the latter, people get booked for eating and drinking (anything)
> while driving. driving being any time while the vehicle is in
> traffic, so even when stopped at the lights.
>
> >> Anti skid should work on ice.
>
> >Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should
> >test it in such conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do
> >so). It simply 'pumps' the brakes as it's supposed to.
>
> Well you're in the (probably) 5% of car owners who read the manual
> at least once. Perhaps you're also in the 0.5% who try out the jack
> and other tools before you need them.
Why would you try out a jack? What is hard about changing a tire? The
hardest part is the lug nuts anyway.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 12:22:12
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:4mrgd4x7gd.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
>> Well you're in the (probably) 5% of car owners who read the manual
>> at least once. Perhaps you're also in the 0.5% who try out the jack
>> and other tools before you need them.
>
> Why would you try out a jack? What is hard about changing a tire? The
> hardest part is the lug nuts anyway.
>
>
The jack is often the worst piece of junk they can design and often not
very safe to use. I tossed my toy spare for a real tire and bought a
mini-hydraulic that is easily ten times better than the wind up toy that
comes with new cars.
Note: You CAN get killed or lose an arm due to the cheap jacks falling
over and letting the car fall on you or a body part.
Does that ever get mentioned?
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:47:18
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> nash wrote:
>
>> "George Conklin" wrote
>>> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>> In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
>
> No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60 ($120) and 3
> penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum for speeding). 12 points =
> licence suspension btw. The 'points' expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite
> sure, I've never had any.
>
>
>> Anti skid should work on ice.
>
> Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should test it in such
> conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do so). It simply 'pumps' the
> brakes as it's supposed to.
>
>
> Graham
>
That sounds like pump, slide, pump, slide...repeat. Not the most
efficient way to slow down. I practiced on a frozen lake bed once in
about 1973 and the best way I found was to just barely apply the brakes
to the almost skid point and stay straight. Locking the brakes and
letting loose over and over did nothing useful in terms of stopping.
Just to be clear, it was about a 5 mile diameter dead flat dry lake bed
that had frozen over with a few inches of ice, simulating a giant ice
skating rink, but great to try out emergency stopping and turning
techniques. My conclusion was that if you hit that kind of ice (black
ice) you are going the way inertia takes you and there is very little to
be done. Top speed was 42 MPH when the driving wheels lost traction and
at one point I was going backwards at that speed, doing a full 360.
Sometimes tech won't save you, no matter what.
Retro-rockets?
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 23:20:52
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bill wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > nash wrote:
> >> "George Conklin" wrote
> >>> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
> >> In Europe are they allowed to use cellulars and drive?
> >
> > No. The fine for doing so in the UK has just increased to £60 ($120) and 3
> > penalty points on your licence (same as the minimum for speeding). 12 points =
> > licence suspension btw. The 'points' expire after 5 yrs IIRC - I'm not quite
> > sure, I've never had any.
> >
> >> Anti skid should work on ice.
> >
> > Mine does. Saab recommend in the owner's manual that you should test it in such
> > conditions in fact (obviously in a safe place to do so). It simply 'pumps' the
> > brakes as it's supposed to.
> >
> That sounds like pump, slide, pump, slide...repeat. Not the most
> efficient way to slow down.
It does it very fast. It's more like a bzzzztttt !
It *does* work too. It 'scrabbles' a bit but pulls up sharp on very snowy roads. It's
a curious effect but quite safe. I've never had it on sheet ice since I've never come
across any since I've owned it.
Think for a second where Saabs are made !
Graham
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:56:32
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
Probably just another US-only phenomenon.
Graham
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:33:53
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On Fri, 23 2007 18:56:32 +0000, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>
>Probably just another US-only phenomenon.
Well, there are issues. One is that the first few times a person gets
into the antibraking mode, the feedback is so unusual that people
often let up on the brake (I had a Neon that sounded like you were
stepping on a hamster). Not a good move. And no doubt the theory that
people will simply tailgate closer is true for some very few, but you
could say the same thing about any good set of brakes, like putting
big discs on a sports car. Perhaps more so in the latter case, because
you would have a better real world idea of how they affect regular
braking as their effect is seen in every use of the brakes.
I always had a problem correlating the arguments above, that
antibraking didn't work because people didn't know what to expect and
then, that they incorporated antibraking into their risk avoidance
model on the road. I lean toward the first really having an effect and
the second argument sounding nice and theoretical, but unlike
practically everyone I know that drives.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 08:48:16
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
>
> You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
> death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags, strong
> roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or may
> not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are told.
> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>
>
Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
a little too far.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 22:06:11
From: William O'Hara
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through
> rough conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too.
> Sorry, bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told
> how safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after
> the crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
> situation without the false security that made him push the limits,
> just a little too far.
> Bill Baka
>
4 Wheel Drive is very misconceiving. It costs more, but people don't pay
attention to what they get. Some have all four wheels receiving power
in fourwheel mode. There is no variation in power to each wheel. It
doesn't increase traction. In a panic stop it adds no value what so ever.
Why not ask for disk brakes through the car instead of drum brakes in the
rear and forgo useless 4wheel drive? Why the heck isn't it standard in the
US for four disk brakes? I actually think 4wheel-drive is the most useless
thing here in Massachusetts where snow is so infrequent in comparison to
other locales and plowed regularly. There are very limited occasions when
traction might be difficult nor does the majority of the cars provide a
real advantage. It costs more and does nothing for overall safety.
I should also point out that I think that the people tend to oversteer in a
braking application and turn their automobiles.
--
---
William O'Hara
www.N1ey.com - Amateur Radio and Railfan Blog
www.yahoogroups.com/group/illinoiscentral - premier discussion list re:
ICRR
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:19:17
From: nash
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:AumdnT7cCJ9vg5nbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> George Conklin wrote:
>>
>> You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
>> death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags,
>> strong
>> roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or
>> may
>> not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are
>> told.
>> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>>
>>
> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think that
> since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that accident
> they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people with 4 wheel
> drive. They think that because they can drive through rough conditions
> that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry, bad logic. 4
> wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just a
> little too far.
> Bill Baka
I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags can
cause serious damage to the person they are saving. My sister got into an
accident thinking the opposing driver was acknowledging to stop. She conked
out and broke the sternum and lost a years wages, accident was 50/50(not
according to her lawyer) but she has seen no money for her therapy.
Overconfidence 'cause of these things is criminal. :)
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:13:08
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
nash wrote:
> I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags can
> cause serious damage to the person they are saving.
Really ? Over here we know they can kill you. As a result kids are now not
allowed to ride in the front. Same even for adults below 5' tall or somesuch too
! And that's even with our smaller than US-size airbags.
> My sister got into an accident thinking the opposing driver was acknowledging
> to stop.
Never "assume" anything especially when your life may depend on it.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 12:20:10
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> nash wrote:
>
>
>>I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags can
>>cause serious damage to the person they are saving.
>
>
> Really ? Over here we know they can kill you. As a result kids are now not
> allowed to ride in the front. Same even for adults below 5' tall or somesuch too
> ! And that's even with our smaller than US-size airbags.
>
>
>
>>My sister got into an accident thinking the opposing driver was acknowledging
>>to stop.
>
>
> Never "assume" anything especially when your life may depend on it.
>
> Graham
>
I believe that we in the US are now allowed to use lower power and
adaptive airbags, but it took a while for NHTSA to get around to it (as
is the case with most things that make sense.)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 21:05:11
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote in message
news:eu3j3p22v2d@news2.newsguy.com...
> Eeyore wrote:
> >
> > nash wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags
can
> >>cause serious damage to the person they are saving.
> >
> >
> > Really ? Over here we know they can kill you. As a result kids are now
not
> > allowed to ride in the front. Same even for adults below 5' tall or
somesuch too
> > ! And that's even with our smaller than US-size airbags.
> >
> >
> >
> >>My sister got into an accident thinking the opposing driver was
acknowledging
> >>to stop.
> >
> >
> > Never "assume" anything especially when your life may depend on it.
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> I believe that we in the US are now allowed to use lower power and
> adaptive airbags, but it took a while for NHTSA to get around to it (as
> is the case with most things that make sense.)
>
> nate
Yes, and the new ones can even sense a rollover, and inflate for 5-6 seconds
and stay that way to protect you. You should not put a child in a front
seat unless the key is used to turn off the airbag as it is in pickkup
trucks.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:21:32
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
nash wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:AumdnT7cCJ9vg5nbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think that
>> since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that accident
>> they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people with 4 wheel
>> drive. They think that because they can drive through rough conditions
>> that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry, bad logic. 4
>> wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
>> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
>> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
>> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
>> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just a
>> little too far.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags can
> cause serious damage to the person they are saving. My sister got into an
> accident thinking the opposing driver was acknowledging to stop. She conked
> out and broke the sternum and lost a years wages, accident was 50/50(not
> according to her lawyer) but she has seen no money for her therapy.
> Overconfidence 'cause of these things is criminal. :)
>
>
Exactly, not to mention the possible loss of hearing or actually kill
someone in the passenger seat who is leaning over and gets a broken
neck. There was a rash of those reports in the news a few years ago, but
somebody must have told the networks to stop reporting it.
?????
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 01:31:33
From: nash
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:0oadnco2Z-lwzZnbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@comcast.com...
> nash wrote:
>> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:AumdnT7cCJ9vg5nbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
>>> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
>>> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
>>> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
>>> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
>>> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
>>> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
>>> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
>>> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
>>> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
>>> a little too far.
>>> Bill Baka
>>
>> I especially do not like the fact they never tell anyone that air bags
>> can cause serious damage to the person they are saving. My sister got
>> into an accident thinking the opposing driver was acknowledging to stop.
>> She conked out and broke the sternum and lost a years wages, accident was
>> 50/50(not according to her lawyer) but she has seen no money for her
>> therapy.
>> Overconfidence 'cause of these things is criminal. :)
> Exactly, not to mention the possible loss of hearing or actually kill
> someone in the passenger seat who is leaning over and gets a broken neck.
> There was a rash of those reports in the news a few years ago, but
> somebody must have told the networks to stop reporting it.
> ?????
> Bill Baka
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:08:08
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:AumdnT7cCJ9vg5nbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
> > death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags,
strong
> > roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or
may
> > not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are
told.
> > But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
> >
> >
> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
> a little too far.
> Bill Baka
I use the 4-wheel drive daily in at the cabin, simply because of the 30
degree driveway and also for thing like pulling the tractor out of the
stream. But not on the highway... Anti-lock brakes were supposed to stop
accidents but statistically the don't. My feeling on the first set I had (a
Plymouth Van) was that the lengthened stopping distances when one wheel hit
gravel near a local intersection, causing me to drift out into traffic.
Otherwise, the car would have stopped with 3 wheels on solid pavement. I
don't know what would have happened if the road happened to be all dirt, but
this problem came about daily otherwise. With more modern systems, this
problem has been solved.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 12:18:29
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:AumdnT7cCJ9vg5nbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
>> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
>> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
>> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
>> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
>> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
>> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
>> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
>> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
>> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
>> a little too far.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I use the 4-wheel drive daily in at the cabin, simply because of the 30
> degree driveway and also for thing like pulling the tractor out of the
> stream.
How does one get a tractor stuck in a stream????
But not on the highway...
A friend way back in the 60's had a WWII military ambulance and when he
put it in 4 wheel drive it would bind up and chirp the tires every few
hundred feet. That was a strictly business off road truck.
Using 4WD on the highway makes no sense at all, especially over 25 MPH.
If you need 4WD to get up to that speed you'd better hope you don't have
to stop fast.
Anti-lock brakes were supposed to stop
> accidents but statistically the don't.
Nothing is idiot proof, but a government study can say otherwise. Air
bags, crush zones, ABS, etc., just make a bad driver more careless and
give the good drivers a false sense of security that may make them drive
worse.
My feeling on the first set I had (a
> Plymouth Van) was that the lengthened stopping distances when one wheel hit
> gravel near a local intersection, causing me to drift out into traffic.
> Otherwise, the car would have stopped with 3 wheels on solid pavement. I
> don't know what would have happened if the road happened to be all dirt, but
> this problem came about daily otherwise. With more modern systems, this
> problem has been solved.
>
>
And yet I prefer a car with little or no electronics involved so the end
result is what I did, not what the car thought it should do. I'm getting
really leery of any new cars because they have too much junk built in.
Anybody who needs a 'Tom-Tom' to get from point A to point B shouldn't
be driving. Those things are a distraction themselves. And DVD players
for the kids in the back seat? The need to be 'entertained' 24/7 is
getting out of hand.
When I was a kid we used to invent games like spotting out of state
license plates, or actually reading the Burma-Shave signs at one word
per sign.
Sigh. Simpler times.
My big whoopee with my dad was when he got his brand new 1955 Mercury
and tried to peg it on a Wisconsin highway. He got it to 112 MPH
indicated and we were on a rolling road so it was like a high speed
roller coaster. Seat belts? Hah. I was standing in the rear looking over
his shoulder to see if he could hit 120.
And youse guys wonder where I get the need for speed.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 12:06:39
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:0oadncs2Z-mlzZnbnZ2dnUVZ_qmpnZ2d@comcast.com...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Bill" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:AumdnT7cCJ9vg5nbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
> >> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
> >> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
> >> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through
rough
> >> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
> >> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
> >> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
> >> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
> >> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
> >> situation without the false security that made him push the limits,
just
> >> a little too far.
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > I use the 4-wheel drive daily in at the cabin, simply because of the
30
> > degree driveway and also for thing like pulling the tractor out of the
> > stream.
>
> How does one get a tractor stuck in a stream????
>
Easy. Mud is hard to deal with especially when the bank slopes and you
just kind of slide in sideways.
> But not on the highway...
>
> A friend way back in the 60's had a WWII military ambulance and when he
> put it in 4 wheel drive it would bind up and chirp the tires every few
> hundred feet. That was a strictly business off road truck.
> Using 4WD on the highway makes no sense at all, especially over 25 MPH.
> If you need 4WD to get up to that speed you'd better hope you don't have
> to stop fast.
>
> Anti-lock brakes were supposed to stop
> > accidents but statistically the don't.
>
> Nothing is idiot proof, but a government study can say otherwise. Air
> bags, crush zones, ABS, etc., just make a bad driver more careless and
> give the good drivers a false sense of security that may make them drive
> worse.
>
> My feeling on the first set I had (a
> > Plymouth Van) was that the lengthened stopping distances when one wheel
hit
> > gravel near a local intersection, causing me to drift out into traffic.
> > Otherwise, the car would have stopped with 3 wheels on solid pavement.
I
> > don't know what would have happened if the road happened to be all dirt,
but
> > this problem came about daily otherwise. With more modern systems, this
> > problem has been solved.
> >
> >
> And yet I prefer a car with little or no electronics involved so the end
> result is what I did, not what the car thought it should do. I'm getting
> really leery of any new cars because they have too much junk built in.
> Anybody who needs a 'Tom-Tom' to get from point A to point B shouldn't
> be driving. Those things are a distraction themselves. And DVD players
> for the kids in the back seat? The need to be 'entertained' 24/7 is
> getting out of hand.
> When I was a kid we used to invent games like spotting out of state
> license plates, or actually reading the Burma-Shave signs at one word
> per sign.
> Sigh. Simpler times.
> My big whoopee with my dad was when he got his brand new 1955 Mercury
> and tried to peg it on a Wisconsin highway. He got it to 112 MPH
> indicated and we were on a rolling road so it was like a high speed
> roller coaster. Seat belts? Hah. I was standing in the rear looking over
> his shoulder to see if he could hit 120.
> And youse guys wonder where I get the need for speed.
> Bill Baka
The new cars are much safer, but as you say, sometimes they don't behave
like the old ones.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:57:34
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bill wrote:
> George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
> > death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags, strong
> > roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or may
> > not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are told.
> > But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>
> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
> a little too far.
Defensive driving is the answer but you have to learn to do that.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 11:58:17
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Bill wrote:
>
>> George Conklin wrote:
>>> You mean fender benders don't count? Do count? No, the overall rate
>>> death rate is what safer cars is designed to lower, as in air bags, strong
>>> roofs, crush zones and so forth and so on. Anti-skid technology may or may
>>> not change rates in both parts of the world, saving many lives, we are told.
>>> But anti-skid brakes changed nothing, unfortunately, in the real world.
>> Anti skid brakes did do something. They made the average driver think
>> that since he had them the car would magically stop and avoid that
>> accident they drove themselves into. The same thing happens to people
>> with 4 wheel drive. They think that because they can drive through rough
>> conditions that cars can't handle that they can stop better too. Sorry,
>> bad logic. 4 wheel drive is absolutely useless in a panic stop.
>> People need to be educated about vehicle dynamics and not just told how
>> safe their car is when they do crash it. Air bags only work after the
>> crash has started, and the driver may never have gotten into that
>> situation without the false security that made him push the limits, just
>> a little too far.
>
> Defensive driving is the answer but you have to learn to do that.
>
> Graham
>
Situational awareness!
Something Americans lack. My granddaughter (by way of stepdaughter) has
wrecked 3 cars, all by rear ending another and all while yapping on her
cell phone. Now her mom wants to buy her a bigger car or pickup truck.
Why? She'll wind up killing someone in a smaller car.
It seems to be an American thing.
Me, I like sticks and the lost art of double clutching down shifts,
whilst my wife thinks I don't know what I'm doing.
Some know and enjoy, some will never have a clue.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:01:20
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bill wrote:
>> Graham
>>
> Situational awareness!
> Something Americans lack. My granddaughter (by way of stepdaughter) has
> wrecked 3 cars, all by rear ending another and all while yapping on her
> cell phone.
So, because your granddaughter is an oblivious idiot, you think all
Americans are?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 11:26:55
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>> Graham
>>>
>> Situational awareness!
>> Something Americans lack. My granddaughter (by way of stepdaughter)
>> has wrecked 3 cars, all by rear ending another and all while yapping
>> on her cell phone.
>
> So, because your granddaughter is an oblivious idiot, you think all
> Americans are?
No.
A lot of Americans are in fact, oblivious idiots, and she is one
statistic on that side of the line. You can't blame me because she is
not mine biologically. My actual daughter is 28, intelligent, and
attentive, at least until she gets her CD player turned up. At least she
has never rear ended anyone in ten years of driving.
When I ride on the roads I see mostly average drivers following the law,
a few idiot soccer moms on Cell phones, some even turning around to
scold their kids while driving 45 MPH or more, some nice people who wave
and cheer me on, and some complete assholes either kids, or rednecks
with a pickup truck bed full of beer bottles/cans.
Take your pick, there are all kinds.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:28:50
From: nash
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Kevin Rhodes" <krhodes@maine.rr.com > wrote in message
news:4603f9d2$0$24712$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> In article <RRkMh.129962$_73.122030@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "George
> Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>>>
>>> Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>>
>> Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
>>rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out
>>lie.
>>
>>
>
> What I would like to see is the total *accident* rate by whatever
> comparable
> metric between the US and Europe, not the *death* rate. I would bet that
> the
> accident rate in Europe is MUCH lower than in the US. In Europe, if you
> have
> an accident at speed on a highway you are more likely to die in that
> accident
> - higher speeds and smaller cars. Simple fact is while there are fewer
> accidents on the German Autobahn, when there is one people generally die.
>
> I've driven on the Autobahn, and while I wouldn't call it relaxing, I felt
> safer driving 125mph there than I do at 55mph on Rt128 around Boston.
>
> It truly amazes me that so many boneheads here in the US manage to kill
> themselves and each other while driving so slowly.
>
> I would say that I see more low-speed dumbass fenderbenders in a week
> while
> commuting in the Boston area than I saw total in the many months I have
> lived
> in London, Budapest, and Vienna.
>
> Kevin Rhodes
> Live in Maine, work outside Boston during the week
You can add Canadian drivers as well. In Surrey it is a joke hearing about
a new accident every hour on the hour. Imagine biking with those jerks and
you have a slice of my life.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 03:53:07
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" wrote
> > "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
> >
> > Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>
> Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
> rate to the USA.
No it *ISN'T*
> The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out lie.
You're an idiot.
Graham
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 21:27:19
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>>
>>Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>
>
> Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU death
> rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a flat-out
> lie.
>
No, no it's not.
The statement that you're talking about things you obviously don't know
anything about, however, is patently true.
I don't know one person who's driven in western Europe who doesn't come
back and bitch long and loud about American drivers.
You still haven't posted a cite for your statistics. "your ass" does
not count as a credible source.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 20:21:16
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote in message
news:etsm1o0usu@news2.newsguy.com...
> George Conklin wrote:
> > "Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
> >>
> >>Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
> >
> >
> > Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU
death
> > rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a
flat-out
> > lie.
> >
>
> No, no it's not.
>
> The statement that you're talking about things you obviously don't know
> anything about, however, is patently true.
>
> I don't know one person who's driven in western Europe who doesn't come
> back and bitch long and loud about American drivers.
>
> You still haven't posted a cite for your statistics. "your ass" does
> not count as a credible source.
>
> nate
Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American drivers
are much better behaved than at home." So there. And the EU accident data
is from one of their own reports. I suggest you grow up.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:53:30
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American drivers
> are much better behaved than at home."
I can quite believe you'd make that up too.
> So there. And the EU accident data is from one of their own reports.
You're suggesting it's bogus ?
> I suggest you grow up.
You're an utter idiot.
Graham
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 12:02:43
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:4604222A.809F9501@hotmail.com...
>
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American
drivers
> > are much better behaved than at home."
>
> I can quite believe you'd make that up too.
>
Her name is y Hooper. She was my wife's roommate out in India. Very
British.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:24:54
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > George Conklin wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American
> > > drivers are much better behaved than at home."
> >
> > I can quite believe you'd make that up too.
>
> Her name is y Hooper. She was my wife's roommate out in India. Very
> British.
Do you know where she currently lives ?
Indian driving is something else again. I've been there a few times.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 21:03:12
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:460550D6.6D951155@hotmail.com...
>
>
> George Conklin wrote:
>
> > "Eeyore" wrote
> > > George Conklin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American
> > > > drivers are much better behaved than at home."
> > >
> > > I can quite believe you'd make that up too.
> >
> > Her name is y Hooper. She was my wife's roommate out in India.
Very
> > British.
>
> Do you know where she currently lives ?
>
> Indian driving is something else again. I've been there a few times.
>
> Graham
>
>
Well, yes, but do you want a date or something?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 23:31:01
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Do you know where she currently lives ?
> >
> > Indian driving is something else again. I've been there a few times.
>
> Well, yes, but do you want a date or something?
I just gone one actually about 3 hours ago for Wednesday. She asked me out too
and said she'd treat me ! How much better can it get.
Graham
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 18:17:29
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:etsm1o0usu@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>>"Motorhead Lawyer" <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1174332112.623988.221700@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 16, 4:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
>>>>
>>>>Well, if they were all stupid drivers ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually it is more like 20,000 more dead if we applied the EU
>
> death
>
>>>rate to the USA. The idea that they drive better in Europe is a
>
> flat-out
>
>>>lie.
>>>
>>
>>No, no it's not.
>>
>>The statement that you're talking about things you obviously don't know
>>anything about, however, is patently true.
>>
>>I don't know one person who's driven in western Europe who doesn't come
>>back and bitch long and loud about American drivers.
>>
>>You still haven't posted a cite for your statistics. "your ass" does
>>not count as a credible source.
>>
>>nate
>
>
> Ok, I'll post from a friend from UK who states to us, "American drivers
> are much better behaved than at home." So there.
Anecdotal.
> And the EU accident data
> is from one of their own reports.
Once again, CITE?
My numbers say that I'm the stest person in the whole damn universe.
But I'm so damn st that I don't have to post a link to a credible
source stating same, you should just believe whatever I say.
> I suggest you grow up.
I suggest you STFU until you have some credibility.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 14:15:39
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: MOST DANGEROUS DRIVING HABITS
|
On 16, 6:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45FB095B.E5E1AFB2@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > george conklin wrote:
>
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
> >> > would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
> >> > anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
> >> > for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
> >> > that."
>
> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>
> > How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and ignoring
> > yield
> > signs for example.
>
> > Graham
>
> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I first
> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe. They have
> fallen since. The nonsense, "If they do it in Europe it must be better"
> just has to stop. We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.-
Sorry to say you are wrong. Dead wrong. Something like 25,000 people
would be saved if we were as safe as Sweden. And if you prefer
something less exotic, even our best partner in crime, the UK, has a
very safe record.
I can research the stats if you want, but I can advance you that
DRIVING FAST ON THE RIGHT LANE (great danger to cycllists) and TALKING
ON THE PHONE (an even greater danger to cyclists) top the list of MOST
DANGEROUS DRIVING HABITS...
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 14:42:07
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: MOST DANGEROUS DRIVING HABITS
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 16, 6:20 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:45FB095B.E5E1AFB2@hotmail.com...
>
> Sorry to say you are wrong. Dead wrong. Something like 25,000 people
> would be saved if we were as safe as Sweden.
Ah, but Sweden is NOT representative of Europe as a whole.
> And if you prefer
> something less exotic, even our best partner in crime, the UK, has a
> very safe record.
I guess we need lots of speed cameras, right-hand drive in our cars, and
to switch to driving on the left side of the raod then
>
> I can research the stats if you want, but I can advance you that
> DRIVING FAST ON THE RIGHT LANE (great danger to cycllists) and TALKING
> ON THE PHONE (an even greater danger to cyclists) top the list of MOST
> DANGEROUS DRIVING HABITS...
>
Actually, someone on another group claimed the other day that the top 5
causes for accidents involving injuries (or fatalities) were:
31% Inattention
17% Excessive speed
16% Emerging from minor road/driveway without care
09% Excess alcohol or drugs
07% Turning right without care
I'll see if I can get him to provide a specific cite, but he claimed
those figures came from a 2005 report in the UK.
The discussion was OT for the other group and the thread soon died out,
but I argued that most of those could more properly be classified as
incompetent drivers.
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 13:03:39
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On 16, 10:40 am, mcaguit...@comcast.net wrote:
> On 15, 12:36 pm, "donquijote1954"
>
> > I got SUVphobia. It's basically the fear that an SUV can kill you. If
> > they are 16 times more likely to kill you in a car, imagine on a bike
> > --and the driver on the cell!
>
> That contradicts your theory as bicycles being a superior alternate
> form of transportation. With that kind of death rate, it's obviously
> much too risky.
>
No, it only proves the inferior and primitive law that prevails on our
roads: THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE. If we had THE RULE OF LAW (rules of the
road), then bicycles would be superior, morally at least. But the same
thing applies to every other smaller vehicle out there.
And this is a comment to the article below...
"Why don't American drivers drive like that? Because we are a
snobbish, boorish, rude society that feels that it has the right to do
whatever it wants. If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
that."
Lane discipline... or a lack thereof
This may sound like I'm whining. I'm not (I hate that sound from
anyone). But I am complaining. Because, as drivers -- enthusiast or
otherwise -- we have a problem in this country.
I was rolling down the road the other day with sports car racing ace,
2005 Grand Am champion, and Rolex 24 winner Max Angelelli in the
passenger seat. Sure it would have probably been more fun the other
way around, but no matter. He asked, "Why don't drivers mind their
lane here in America? Why do the slow cars hog the left lane? It seems
to me that this complicates the traffic. And why does everyone get so
angry when you flash your lights at them?" Max maintains homes in
Monaco, Italy, and Florida. So, besides his obvious driving
credentials, he has experience on roads all over the world.
It seemed a simple question, but one I couldn't answer. In Europe,
particularly Italy and Germany, there are rules of the road that cover
this. Trucks and slow cars to the right -- always. What we would call
the number two lane, in most instances, is for cars only, moving along
at the speed limit or above. The number one lane, the one we call the
fast lane, but seldom is here -- really is over there, reserved for
those who are passing or really hauling butt. And everybody drives by
these dictums. All the time.
more...
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6200177/editorial/lane-discipline-or-a-lack-thereof/index.html
WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
BANANA REVOLUTION (T-shirts to change the world)
http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 20:53:43
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174075419.114358.249390@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
> would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
> anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
> for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
> that."
>
>
If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If we
drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
died.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 18:05:17
From: Pat
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On Apr 3, 9:13 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:1175606797.394367.55820@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 10:06 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Pat wrote:
> >> > On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >> >>> When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
> >> >>> whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
> >> >> Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to
> >> >> life."
> >> >> or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to have
> >> >> gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and some
> >> >> other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually
> >> >> evaluate
> >> >> all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
>
> >> > Who said religion is a trivial thing?
>
> >> >> I hate politics.
> >> >> Bill Baka
>
> >> I didn't say religion was trivial. Basing who is going to run or ruin
> >> this country based on a single religious belief that the Vatican says
> >> stem cell research is immoral only tells me that separation of church
> >> and state as per the Constitution isn't happening. Other countries are
> >> leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
> >> president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
> >> Religion is NOT trivial.
> >> Politics is NOT trivial, but should be agnostic.
> >> Simple in concept but not in real life.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> > Woa. Prez can talk to God through Pope? Wrong religion. Pope is
> > Catholic. Bush is ... I don't know what, but definately NOT Catholic.
>
> > Since this whole thing has started, Catholics (at least in my Diocese)
> > have included the Prayer for Peace in the service. Also, Catholics
> > tend to be VERY anti-death penalty.
>
> > We could only pray that Bush would embrace Catholic ideals. Not all
> > of them, but some of the major ones would be nice.
>
> My understanding is that Catholics and Protestants are simply different
> "flavors" of the same religion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Catholics ad Protestants are different flavors of the same religion
like Liberals and Conservatives are different flavors of the same
political spectrum.
Catholics, especially before JPII, tended to be, if anything, the
"Religious Left". It also can be a very activist religion, when done
right. Think of the colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. that the
Catholic Church in its various forms, have started and support.
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 20:39:40
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175735117.368304.226350@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 9:13 am, "Amy Blankenship"
> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1175606797.394367.55820@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 10:06 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Pat wrote:
>> >> > On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary,
>> >> >>> but
>> >> >>> whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
>> >> >> Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to
>> >> >> life."
>> >> >> or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually
>> >> >> evaluate
>> >> >> all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
>>
>> >> > Who said religion is a trivial thing?
>>
>> >> >> I hate politics.
>> >> >> Bill Baka
>>
>> >> I didn't say religion was trivial. Basing who is going to run or ruin
>> >> this country based on a single religious belief that the Vatican says
>> >> stem cell research is immoral only tells me that separation of church
>> >> and state as per the Constitution isn't happening. Other countries are
>> >> leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
>> >> president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
>> >> Religion is NOT trivial.
>> >> Politics is NOT trivial, but should be agnostic.
>> >> Simple in concept but not in real life.
>> >> Bill Baka
>>
>> > Woa. Prez can talk to God through Pope? Wrong religion. Pope is
>> > Catholic. Bush is ... I don't know what, but definately NOT Catholic.
>>
>> > Since this whole thing has started, Catholics (at least in my Diocese)
>> > have included the Prayer for Peace in the service. Also, Catholics
>> > tend to be VERY anti-death penalty.
>>
>> > We could only pray that Bush would embrace Catholic ideals. Not all
>> > of them, but some of the major ones would be nice.
>>
>> My understanding is that Catholics and Protestants are simply different
>> "flavors" of the same religion.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Catholics ad Protestants are different flavors of the same religion
> like Liberals and Conservatives are different flavors of the same
> political spectrum.
>
> Catholics, especially before JPII, tended to be, if anything, the
> "Religious Left". It also can be a very activist religion, when done
> right. Think of the colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. that the
> Catholic Church in its various forms, have started and support.
Er, that's a political argument. My understanding is that the various
Protestant groups and Catholics are all denominations of Christianity, which
is the religion. Which of these groups are you claiming are not Christians?
I know a lot of Protestants consider Catholics to be borderline pagans due
to the pagan rituals they've incorporated and the saint worship that is very
close to a pantheistic viewpoint. But I only know that because I was
brought up Protestant. I'm sure the Catholics probably have reasons they
don't consider Protestants "proper Christians".
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 06:08:05
From: Bill
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
Amy Blankenship wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>>> My understanding is that Catholics and Protestants are simply different
>>> "flavors" of the same religion.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> Catholics ad Protestants are different flavors of the same religion
>> like Liberals and Conservatives are different flavors of the same
>> political spectrum.
>>
>> Catholics, especially before JPII, tended to be, if anything, the
>> "Religious Left". It also can be a very activist religion, when done
>> right. Think of the colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. that the
>> Catholic Church in its various forms, have started and support.
>
> Er, that's a political argument. My understanding is that the various
> Protestant groups and Catholics are all denominations of Christianity, which
> is the religion. Which of these groups are you claiming are not Christians?
> I know a lot of Protestants consider Catholics to be borderline pagans due
> to the pagan rituals they've incorporated and the saint worship that is very
> close to a pantheistic viewpoint. But I only know that because I was
> brought up Protestant. I'm sure the Catholics probably have reasons they
> don't consider Protestants "proper Christians".
>
>
I was born Catholic and baptized as such, then my parents decided to
drop the whole go to church and drop hard earned cash in the collection
plate. It seemed that the more money you left, the better Catholic you
were, kind of like trying to buy your way into heaven.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 14:15:25
From: Pat
Subject: Re: no gas no problem!
|
On 20, 4:01 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> Yet another T-shirt in the collection "T-shirts to change the
> world"...
>
> "If we can do better than a car, then we should consider new
> alternatives. From the bike to electric vehicles, we want to show we
> care. Make it a real sense of pride."
>
> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235812058937983596
A more appropriate items for the whole bike/alternative fuel crowd
might be:
http://www.despair.com/planning.html
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 14:01:25
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: no gas no problem!
|
Yet another T-shirt in the collection "T-shirts to change the
world"...
"If we can do better than a car, then we should consider new
alternatives. From the bike to electric vehicles, we want to show we
care. Make it a real sense of pride."
http://www.zazzle.com/product/235812058937983596
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 12:10:34
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: it all depends on whether the lion or the monkeys are in charge
|
On 20, 2:22 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com >
wrote:
> In article <1174411578.322790.93...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Monkey society is DEMOCRATIC, lion society is hierarchal, Nazism in
> > action, or a negation of democracy if you prefer...
>
> There are many different kinds of monkey societies; they vary greatly
> between species. If you compare the behaviors of, say, baboons,
> chimpanzees, and bonobos, you'll abandon the notion that they are
> democratic.
Well, I admit I'm biased in favor of the Bonobos...
"[Common] Chimpanzees and Bonobos both evolved from the same ancestor
that gave rise to humans, and yet the Bonobo is one of the most
peaceful, unaggressive species of mammals living on the earth today.
They have evolved ways to reduce violence that permeate their entire
society. They show us that the evolutionary dance of violence is not
inexorable".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo
>
> And no, lion societies are not Nazi: lions haven't a clue about
> totalitarian nationalism or fascism, either as a political system or as
> an economic system in which big industry collaborates with the
> government.
Lions don't know about social systems, but social systems know about
lions, and the wannabe Napoleons out there put lions on their heraldy,
flags and surround themselves by lion statues. Hey, it's not entirely
accurate but most people get the message --and it's quite fun!
--As long as there are the Dutch, there will be bicycles!--
Yep, I totally agree. I think the Dutch are a cause for optimism, and
not China a cause for pessimism.
Well, it depends whether America ches on on the road to autocratic
rule or the road toward toward real democracy Dutch-style. See, China
and America can only ch on the road of monopoly and consumption
when real democracy would work with people using TRANSPORTATION
OPTIONS, aka MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION.
In other words, it all depends on whether the lion or the monkeys are
in charge. ;)
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 11:31:51
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Risk On Two Wheels
|
On 20, 3:02 pm, Curtis L. Russell <cur...@md-bicycling.org > wrote:
> On 20 2007 10:09:42 -0700, "donquijote1954"
>
> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >The Fuhrer hated bikes because
> >corporations (just like here) had a big say in policy and because
> >bicycles weren't good for war.
>
> Not to intrude in your fantasy life, but the above is simply not true.
Is my fantasy life contaminated by real bicycles in real hostile
traffic? Perhaps. It's also a war, you know, but the enemy is the
idiot sitting pretty in an SUV or whatever.
Look at a casualty of this war...
"What I see as a bicyclist is that cars try to get as close as they
can to us, which puts us in great danger," Melanie said.
Another victim of the all-too-common hit and run, wich, if you care,
you can search at Google news under "hit in a bicycle."
Risk On Two Wheels
MIAMI -- What started as a typical Sunday bicycle ride in south Miami-
Dade County ended in a life-changing turn for Wayne Phelps and his
wife, Melanie.
The couple was riding together on their tandem bike with their bicycle
club when they were hit by a van.
http://www.nbc6.net/news/11264720/detail.html
> Bicycles were used in war on both sides during WW II. Not that there
> is much on Hitler's attitude, one way or the other, except in a Monty
> Python skit which I don't remember well.
>
> Folding bikes and bikes that could arguably be called the early
> forerunners of mountain bikes were among those used. I don't know if
> they were ever actually used, but they also had paratroopers equipped
> with folding bikes.
Well, if it was it only had a minor role. And I'm sure it also does
today, but nothing compared to the big toys like tanks or trucks...
(link above)
"General Motors was far more important to the Nazi war machine than
Switzerland," said Bradford Snell, who has spent two decades
researching a history of the world's largest automaker. "Switzerland
was just a repository of looted funds. GM was an integral part of the
German war effort. The Nazis could have invaded Poland and Russia
without Switzerland. They could not have done so without GM."
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 18:35:11
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174075419.114358.249390@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>
>>would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
>>anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>>for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>>that."
>>
>>
>
>
> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If we
> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
> died.
>
>
Then why are Germans etc. not dying on the roads at a rate of 10x what
we do, per passenger mile or per vehicle mile? Perhaps it is because
your assertion is false.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 20:18:05
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <etf62u21h77@news2.newsguy.com >,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote:
>george conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If we
>> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
>> died.
>>
>>
>
>Then why are Germans etc. not dying on the roads at a rate of 10x what
>we do, per passenger mile or per vehicle mile? Perhaps it is because
>your assertion is false.
Perhaps George is including Eastern Europe.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:38:41
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >george conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If we
> >> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
> >> died.
> >
> >Then why are Germans etc. not dying on the roads at a rate of 10x what
> >we do, per passenger mile or per vehicle mile? Perhaps it is because
> >your assertion is false.
>
> Perhaps George is including Eastern Europe.
The former Eastern Bloc countries have some shocking figures.
Graham
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 16:51:21
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <rtDKh.128133$_73.54939@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net >, george conklin wrote:
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1174075419.114358.249390@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>> would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
>> anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>> for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>> that."
>>
>>
>
> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If we
> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
> died.
You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
behavior.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 22:25:14
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:cfKdnSz8n93EjGbYnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> In article <rtDKh.128133$_73.54939@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> george conklin wrote:
>>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1174075419.114358.249390@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>>> would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
>>> anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>>> for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>>> that."
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If
>> we
>> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
>> died.
>
> You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
> than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
> behavior.
>
>
We are not talking about a few miles in Germany, even if that statement is
true. I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are
still there.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 22:40:11
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
> > george conklin wrote:
> >>
> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If
> >> we
> >> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would have
> >> died.
> >
> > You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
> > than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
> > behavior.
>
>
> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are now
motorway / autobahn standard.
> even if that statement is true.
Which it is.
> I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are still
> there.
Uh ?
Graham
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 11:26:25
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > writes:
>george conklin wrote:
>> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > george conklin wrote:
>> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would
>> >> double. If we drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten
>> >> times more American would have died.
>> > You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance
>> > traveled than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an
>> > absence of MFFY behavior.
>> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
>A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are now
>motorway / autobahn standard.
Indeed. Autobahn travel accounts for 34% of all road traffic
kilometers in Germany. There are over 12,000 km of Autobahn in
Germany and the network is steadily growing.
Beyond the Autobahn being the safest type of road, it also *reduces*
overall fuel consumption. That style of road is typical of bypasses
and is a definite economic bonus both in fuel costs and in travel
times.
Road safety in densely-populated areas is a problem; simply because
there are so many cars and so little road space in older towns.
Rural roads are typically avenues with trees on the edge of the
hard shoulder, so a minor error often results in a fatality.
There's been a lot of work recently, in conjunction with providing
Autobahn- style bypasses (typically cross-section RQ26 or greater)
that reduces traffic on such rural roads as well as local ones.
Other ameliorative measures include crash barriers between cars and
trees near intersections, and where the greeines allow; removal of
at least some of the trees.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:22:34
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45FB1CCB.8436D323@hotmail.com...
>
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > george conklin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>> >> If
>> >> we
>> >> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would
>> >> have
>> >> died.
>> >
>> > You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
>> > than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
>> > behavior.
>>
>>
>> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
>
> A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are now
> motorway / autobahn standard.
>
>
>> even if that statement is true.
>
> Which it is.
>
>
>> I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are still
>> there.
>
> Uh ?
>
> Graham
>
>
So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in Europe
as a whole.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:47:38
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in Europe
> as a whole.
Rubbish.
UK rates for example are 80% of the US figure, despite our roads being busier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
The lowest figure is for Finland btw (followed by the UK in 2nd place with some
of the busiest roads in the world)..
Graham
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 09:10:47
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45FB1CCB.8436D323@hotmail.com...
>
>>
>>george conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>george conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>>>>>If
>>>>>we
>>>>>drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would
>>>>>have
>>>>>died.
>>>>
>>>>You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
>>>>than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
>>>>behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
>>
>>A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are now
>>motorway / autobahn standard.
>>
>>
>>
>>>even if that statement is true.
>>
>>Which it is.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are still
>>>there.
>>
>>Uh ?
>>
>>Graham
>>
>>
>
> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in Europe
> as a whole.
>
Cite? Numbers I've seen are either about equal or actually lower for
most European countries.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 13:47:21
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote in message
news:etgpcm04k8@news2.newsguy.com...
> george conklin wrote:
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:45FB1CCB.8436D323@hotmail.com...
>>
>>>
>>>george conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>george conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If
>>>>>>we
>>>>>>drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would
>>>>>>have
>>>>>>died.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
>>>>>than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
>>>>>behavior.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
>>>
>>>A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are now
>>>motorway / autobahn standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>even if that statement is true.
>>>
>>>Which it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are
>>>> still
>>>>there.
>>>
>>>Uh ?
>>>
>>>Graham
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in
>> Europe as a whole.
>
> Cite? Numbers I've seen are either about equal or actually lower for most
> European countries.
>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel
The only reason why European rates overall seem lower is that they post per
kilometer, not per mile, as we do. That makes the rates seem lower. Of
course, they use per billion miles too, so you have to move the decimal
over.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:52:18
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> The only reason why European rates overall seem lower is that they post per
> kilometer, not per mile, as we do.
Bollocks. US miles get converted into km. As do UK miles.
You're a blowhard idiot.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:13:51
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45FC00A2.4F44D17B@hotmail.com...
>
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> The only reason why European rates overall seem lower is that they post
>> per
>> kilometer, not per mile, as we do.
>
> Bollocks. US miles get converted into km. As do UK miles.
>
> You're a blowhard idiot.
>
> Graham
>
The posted rate for Europe is 13.1 fatalities per billion kilos. If you
translate that into miles, we would have about 20,000 more deaths per year
if we drove like the Europeans. Sorry about that. Even UK would be about
even: no advantage there.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:44:02
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> The posted rate for Europe is 13.1 fatalities per billion kilos.
No it isn't. It's probably about 8 or so.
You want to make a claim like that - post a cite.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 10:19:19
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:etgpcm04k8@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>george conklin wrote:
>>
>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:45FB1CCB.8436D323@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>george conklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>george conklin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double. If
>>>>>>>we
>>>>>>>drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American would
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>died.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
>>>>>>than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
>>>>>>behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
>>>>
>>>>A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are now
>>>>motorway / autobahn standard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>even if that statement is true.
>>>>
>>>>Which it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are
>>>>>still
>>>>>there.
>>>>
>>>>Uh ?
>>>>
>>>>Graham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in
>>>Europe as a whole.
>>
>>Cite? Numbers I've seen are either about equal or actually lower for most
>>European countries.
>>
>>nate
>>
>>
>>--
>>replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
>>http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
>
> The only reason why European rates overall seem lower is that they post per
> kilometer, not per mile, as we do. That makes the rates seem lower. Of
> course, they use per billion miles too, so you have to move the decimal
> over.
>
>
Oh, sorry, for a second there, I thought you were serious. As you were
then.
nate
(removes hook from lip, spits, returns to computer)
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 09:25:19
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:45FB1CCB.8436D323@hotmail.com...
>>
>>>
>>> george conklin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> george conklin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would
>>>>>> double. If
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> drove like they did in Europe in 1960, ten times more American
>>>>>> would have
>>>>>> died.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
>>>>> than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are not talking about a few miles in Germany,
>>>
>>>
>>> A few miles ? Throughout Europe a large number of the major roads are
>>> now
>>> motorway / autobahn standard.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> even if that statement is true.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I saw something like that in a newspaper but the overall rates are
>>>> still
>>>> there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh ?
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in
>> Europe as a whole.
>
>
> Cite? Numbers I've seen are either about equal or actually lower for
> most European countries.
>
> nate
>
>
you know. like these ones.
http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 07:46:44
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> george conklin wrote:
>>> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in
>>> Europe as a whole.
>>
>> Cite? Numbers I've seen are either about equal or actually lower for
>> most European countries.
>
>you know. like these ones.
>
>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
than the average of Europe, but Americans drive a LOT more miles,
making the death rate per person higher.
Imagine if this was a central political issue in a national election
in the US. Whichever side was trying to paint the situation as
horrific would site the fact the death rate in the US is over twice as
high as Germany - "elect me so I can stop the carnage", while the
other candidate would be saying "I've made our roads almost three
times safer than Greece".... and they'd both be right, yet no one
would actually have a clue what the reality is.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:00:06
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>
> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> than the average of Europe
Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
Sweden 6.3
Norway 7.3
Finland 7.4
UK 7.6
Denk 7.7
Netherlands 7.7
Switzerland 8.1
Germany 8.4
USA 9.4
You were saying ????
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 08:37:05
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>k Hickey wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>>
>> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>> than the average of Europe
>
>Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>
>Sweden 6.3
>Norway 7.3
>Finland 7.4
>UK 7.6
>Denk 7.7
>Netherlands 7.7
>Switzerland 8.1
>Germany 8.4
>USA 9.4
>
>
>You were saying ????
Funny that I had commented that IF this were a political issue, people
would distort the statistics to make their point? "Eeyore" (an
anonymous poster) did just that by ONLY taking the European countries
with lower-than-US rates, and snipping out all the rest (which would
clearly increase the European rate above that of the US).
Disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst, and thoroughly proves my
point.
He/she/it obviously has his/her/its panties in a twist over some sort
of US-envy thing, it appears. No need to continue this particular
thread though (I know, too late...) since the statistics make it clear
he/she/it is wrong.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 13:05:27
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <1vmqv2h0kiru7ln5q2fotg71m0b5i1lrjj@4ax.com >,
k Hickey <k@habcycles.com > wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >k Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
> >>
> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> >> than the average of Europe
> >
> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
> >
> >Sweden 6.3
> >Norway 7.3
> >Finland 7.4
> >UK 7.6
> >Denk 7.7
> >Netherlands 7.7
> >Switzerland 8.1
> >Germany 8.4
> >USA 9.4
> >
> >
> >You were saying ????
>
> Funny that I had commented that IF this were a political issue,
> people would distort the statistics to make their point? "Eeyore"
> (an anonymous poster) did just that by ONLY taking the European
> countries with lower-than-US rates, and snipping out all the rest
> (which would clearly increase the European rate above that of the
> US).
The cited table doesn't compare apples and apples, unfortunately, with
data coming from different years in different countries and the like.
There might also be issues regarding how data is collected. I wonder if
there is a better data set somewhere. Looking at the cited data as it
is, the US ranks fourth in terms of death rates outside of urban areas-
behind New Zealand, Slovenia and Finland. One of those is not a
European country (NZ) and a case could be made that Slovenia isn't a
traditionally European country, but I think that'd be just splitting
hairs.
The US seems safer when looking at the "All Roads" column, though. I
might suggest staying the hell off the roads of the Czech Republic!
Greece and South Korea, too. Holy smokes.
What I can say, in practical terms, is that I felt safer riding the
roads of France than I do riding the roads of the US- even though the
death rate in the "All Roads" column is slightly higher than the US. I
found that French drivers were very much more accommodating to cyclists
than American drivers usually are, although locally that has improved as
there are more cyclists and drivers seem to be more used to them.
I was also struck by how much quieter French roads were in terms of
noise, even with lots of traffic. Vehicle exhaust noise was much lower
for both cars and trucks including diesels. Tire noise seemed lower
too. In general the experience was much less unpleasant than here in
the US.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 14:08:08
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <timmcn-DB96AA.13052718032007@news.iphouse.com >,
Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <1vmqv2h0kiru7ln5q2fotg71m0b5i1lrjj@4ax.com>,
> k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >k Hickey wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>> >>
>> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>> >> than the average of Europe
>> >
>> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>> >
>> >Sweden 6.3
>> >Norway 7.3
>> >Finland 7.4
>> >UK 7.6
>> >Denk 7.7
>> >Netherlands 7.7
>> >Switzerland 8.1
>> >Germany 8.4
>> >USA 9.4
Note that's the 2002 figure for the US. The 2005 figure is 9.2, up
from 9.1 in 2004. (first increase in some time).
>The US seems safer when looking at the "All Roads" column, though. I
>might suggest staying the hell off the roads of the Czech Republic!
>Greece and South Korea, too. Holy smokes.
Having been to Seoul, I would suggest staying off both the roads
and the sidewalks -- the latter often being the realm of motor
scooters.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 15:54:56
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>In article <timmcn-DB96AA.13052718032007@news.iphouse.com>,
>Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>In article <1vmqv2h0kiru7ln5q2fotg71m0b5i1lrjj@4ax.com>,
>> k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> wrote:
>>> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>>> >> than the average of Europe
>>> >
>>> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>>> >
>>> >Sweden 6.3
>>> >Norway 7.3
>>> >Finland 7.4
>>> >UK 7.6
>>> >Denk 7.7
>>> >Netherlands 7.7
>>> >Switzerland 8.1
>>> >Germany 8.4
>>> >USA 9.4
>
>Note that's the 2002 figure for the US. The 2005 figure is 9.2, up
>from 9.1 in 2004. (first increase in some time).
>
>>The US seems safer when looking at the "All Roads" column, though. I
>>might suggest staying the hell off the roads of the Czech Republic!
>>Greece and South Korea, too. Holy smokes.
>
>Having been to Seoul, I would suggest staying off both the roads
>and the sidewalks -- the latter often being the realm of motor
>scooters.
I lived in Seoul for a couple years, and can say with certainty that
it makes even the worst traffic in the US look tame by comparison. Of
course, I also lived in Beijing for a couple years, which made Seoul
look like a walk in the park. Just because you're riding a bicycle in
the northbound bike lane doesn't meen there isn't a southbound bus (or
donkey cart or tractor) in it.
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 16:23:06
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <cv2dnaXTo9GFE2DYnZ2dnUVZ_sKunZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <timmcn-DB96AA.13052718032007@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNaa <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >In article <1vmqv2h0kiru7ln5q2fotg71m0b5i1lrjj@4ax.com>,
> > k Hickey <k@habcycles.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >k Hickey wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
> >> >>
> >> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> >> >> than the average of Europe
> >> >
> >> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
> >> >
> >> >Sweden 6.3
> >> >Norway 7.3
> >> >Finland 7.4
> >> >UK 7.6
> >> >Denk 7.7
> >> >Netherlands 7.7
> >> >Switzerland 8.1
> >> >Germany 8.4
> >> >USA 9.4
>
> Note that's the 2002 figure for the US. The 2005 figure is 9.2, up
> from 9.1 in 2004. (first increase in some time).
IIRC, the overall rate has generally trended downward for a number of
years. My memory might be faulty, but that's my recollection from
previous discussions.
> >The US seems safer when looking at the "All Roads" column, though.
> >I might suggest staying the hell off the roads of the Czech
> >Republic! Greece and South Korea, too. Holy smokes.
>
> Having been to Seoul, I would suggest staying off both the roads and
> the sidewalks -- the latter often being the realm of motor scooters.
Really? Wow!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 17:40:12
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >k Hickey wrote:
> >
> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
> >>
> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> >> than the average of Europe
> >
> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
> >
> >Sweden 6.3
> >Norway 7.3
> >Finland 7.4
> >UK 7.6
> >Denk 7.7
> >Netherlands 7.7
> >Switzerland 8.1
> >Germany 8.4
> >USA 9.4
> >
> >
> >You were saying ????
>
> Funny that I had commented that IF this were a political issue, people
> would distort the statistics to make their point? "Eeyore" (an
> anonymous poster) did just that by ONLY taking the European countries
> with lower-than-US rates, and snipping out all the rest (which would
> clearly increase the European rate above that of the US).
>
> Disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst, and thoroughly proves my
> point.
Not really. I stopped at the USA simply because it was the USA that I was making
a comparison with.
It's questionable whether deaths per billion km is the relevant metric though.
Annual deaths per million of population makes much more sense in terms of
economic and social impact.
In that respect Europe is even further ahead of course.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 10:11:42
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > writes:
>It's questionable whether deaths per billion km is the relevant
>metric though. Annual deaths per million of population makes much
>more sense in terms of economic and social impact.
The deaths per km tells you about the safety of the roads wrt
exposure to that risk. The focus should be on reducing the risk
associated with the exposure.
You have to measure the exposure as well as the potential outcomes
of the risk. A fair metric of exposure is vehicle km. Absent actual
odometer reading on a regular basis, that metric is usually derived
from fuel usage; which is based on estimates of actual fuel
consumption.
One can make the other figure "look good" by reducing the exposure.
e.g. ban or ration the sale of motor vehicle fuels; or increase the
availability and attraction to public transport.
Within countries, it's not unusual to see huge variability between
"States" in terms of road deaths per head of population. viz Berlin
cf North Rhine Westphalia. As you say, the figure may be useful for
infrastructure planning, but you have to keep in mind that "road
fatality" is not a contagious disease so epidemiological measures
are notionally inappropriate. (There's some ginal justification
to use that measure in terms of road user attitudes because they
are "contagious".)
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 15:52:34
From: Mark Hickey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>k Hickey wrote:
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >k Hickey wrote:
>> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>> >> than the average of Europe
>> >
>> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>> >
>> >Sweden 6.3
>> >Norway 7.3
>> >Finland 7.4
>> >UK 7.6
>> >Denk 7.7
>> >Netherlands 7.7
>> >Switzerland 8.1
>> >Germany 8.4
>> >USA 9.4
>> >
>> >You were saying ????
>>
>> Funny that I had commented that IF this were a political issue, people
>> would distort the statistics to make their point? "Eeyore" (an
>> anonymous poster) did just that by ONLY taking the European countries
>> with lower-than-US rates, and snipping out all the rest (which would
>> clearly increase the European rate above that of the US).
>>
>> Disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst, and thoroughly proves my
>> point.
>
>Not really. I stopped at the USA simply because it was the USA that I was making
>a comparison with.
That's a very lame excuse, IMHO. You present a table of numbers,
claiming they make your point. Then when called on your duplicity,
you say "oh, I just stopped pasting there". I could post the same
data, from the US downward, showing the worst European countries -
would THAT be any less valid than your attempt at proving your point?
As they say, there are three kinds of lies - "lies, damn lies, and
statistics". It's nonsense like the above that makes that SO true.
>It's questionable whether deaths per billion km is the relevant metric though.
>Annual deaths per million of population makes much more sense in terms of
>economic and social impact.
The problem with your new position is that your original premise was
that US drivers were lousy drivers. That has NOTHING to do with per
capita, or any other metric EXCEPT accidents / fatalities per mile
driven. If I drive 10x the number of miles you do, and have twice as
many accidents as you, I'm still a 5x better driver than you.
>In that respect Europe is even further ahead of course.
Keep grasping - you'll eventually convince yourself that you're right.
;-)
k Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 09:22:40
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
k Hickey wrote:
> If I drive 10x the number of miles you do, and have twice as
> many accidents as you, I'm still a 5x better driver than you.
Only by that rather linited metric.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 14:01:03
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <45FD797C.A9F9FEB6@hotmail.com >,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>k Hickey wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >k Hickey wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>> >>
>> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>> >> than the average of Europe
>> >
>> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>> >
>> >Sweden 6.3
>> >Norway 7.3
>> >Finland 7.4
>> >UK 7.6
>> >Denk 7.7
>> >Netherlands 7.7
>> >Switzerland 8.1
>> >Germany 8.4
>> >USA 9.4
>> >
>> >
>> >You were saying ????
>>
>> Funny that I had commented that IF this were a political issue, people
>> would distort the statistics to make their point? "Eeyore" (an
>> anonymous poster) did just that by ONLY taking the European countries
>> with lower-than-US rates, and snipping out all the rest (which would
>> clearly increase the European rate above that of the US).
>>
>> Disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst, and thoroughly proves my
>> point.
>
>Not really. I stopped at the USA simply because it was the USA that I was making
>a comparison with.
>
>It's questionable whether deaths per billion km is the relevant metric though.
Not really. It's deaths due to activity per some measure of the
prevalance of the activity.
>Annual deaths per million of population makes much more sense in terms of
>economic and social impact.
Deaths per population makes no sense, because it fails to take into
account the prevalence of the activity.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 21:46:33
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >k Hickey wrote:
> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >k Hickey wrote:
> >> >> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
> >> >>
> >> >> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> >> >> than the average of Europe
> >> >
> >> >Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
> >> >
> >> >Sweden 6.3
> >> >Norway 7.3
> >> >Finland 7.4
> >> >UK 7.6
> >> >Denk 7.7
> >> >Netherlands 7.7
> >> >Switzerland 8.1
> >> >Germany 8.4
> >> >USA 9.4
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >You were saying ????
> >>
> >> Funny that I had commented that IF this were a political issue, people
> >> would distort the statistics to make their point? "Eeyore" (an
> >> anonymous poster) did just that by ONLY taking the European countries
> >> with lower-than-US rates, and snipping out all the rest (which would
> >> clearly increase the European rate above that of the US).
> >>
> >> Disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst, and thoroughly proves my
> >> point.
> >
> >Not really. I stopped at the USA simply because it was the USA that I was making
> >a comparison with.
> >
> >It's questionable whether deaths per billion km is the relevant metric though.
>
> Not really. It's deaths due to activity per some measure of the
> prevalance of the activity.
>
> >Annual deaths per million of population makes much more sense in terms of
> >economic and social impact.
>
> Deaths per population makes no sense, because it fails to take into
> account the prevalence of the activity.
But why is that so uniquely relevant ?
Some ppl reckon you should measure death rate per journey.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:21:42
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> k Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>>
>>That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>>than the average of Europe
>
>
> Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>
> Sweden 6.3
> Norway 7.3
> Finland 7.4
> UK 7.6
> Denk 7.7
> Netherlands 7.7
> Switzerland 8.1
> Germany 8.4
> USA 9.4
>
>
> You were saying ????
>
Do you know what an average is?
Austria 10.8
Belgium 14.6
Czech Repub. 29.3
France 9.9
Greece 26.7
Ireland 16.0
Italy 10.9
Slovenia 18.2
What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
That will give you 11.4
11.4 > 9.4, which is exactly what k claimed.
Granted, that doesn't include ALL European countries and to make a
comparison to Europe, you'd need to consider it as a whole, rather than
an average of individual countries.
> Graham
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:51:43
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > k Hickey wrote:
> >>Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
> >>
> >>That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> >>than the average of Europe
> >
> >
> > Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
> >
> > Sweden 6.3
> > Norway 7.3
> > Finland 7.4
> > UK 7.6
> > Denk 7.7
> > Netherlands 7.7
> > Switzerland 8.1
> > Germany 8.4
> > USA 9.4
> >
> >
> > You were saying ????
> >
>
> Do you know what an average is?
>
> Austria 10.8
> Belgium 14.6
> Czech Repub. 29.3
> France 9.9
> Greece 26.7
> Ireland 16.0
> Italy 10.9
> Slovenia 18.2
>
> What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
>
> That will give you 11.4
No.
You 'weight' the figures according to the populations.
With the exception of France and Italy, all the above have small populations.
The largest of them, France has a rate only fractionally worse than the USA
(9.9/9.4).
The Czech Republic for example has the worst rate but a tiny population. As a
former Eastern Bloc country I'd expect them to lag the rest of us a bit. Ditto
Slovenia.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 12:46:00
From: Stephen Harding
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>k Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>>>>
>>>>That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
>>>>than the average of Europe
>>>
>>>
>>>Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
>>>
>>>Sweden 6.3
>>>Norway 7.3
>>>Finland 7.4
>>>UK 7.6
>>>Denk 7.7
>>>Netherlands 7.7
>>>Switzerland 8.1
>>>Germany 8.4
>>>USA 9.4
>>>
>>>
>>>You were saying ????
>>>
>>
>>Do you know what an average is?
>>
>>Austria 10.8
>>Belgium 14.6
>>Czech Repub. 29.3
>>France 9.9
>>Greece 26.7
>>Ireland 16.0
>>Italy 10.9
>>Slovenia 18.2
>>
>>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
>>
>>That will give you 11.4
>
>
> No.
>
> You 'weight' the figures according to the populations.
>
> With the exception of France and Italy, all the above have small populations.
> The largest of them, France has a rate only fractionally worse than the USA
> (9.9/9.4).
>
> The Czech Republic for example has the worst rate but a tiny population. As a
> former Eastern Bloc country I'd expect them to lag the rest of us a bit. Ditto
> Slovenia.
I would have thought the rates/billion km's would incorporate
the driving population, not the national population, especially
in Europe where the percentage of drivers, or driving miles,
would be lower than in the US.
SMH
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 13:51:13
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Stephen Harding wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>k Hickey wrote:
> >>>>Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
> >>>>
> >>>>That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> >>>>than the average of Europe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Killed per 1 billion Veh·Km
> >>>
> >>>Sweden 6.3
> >>>Norway 7.3
> >>>Finland 7.4
> >>>UK 7.6
> >>>Denk 7.7
> >>>Netherlands 7.7
> >>>Switzerland 8.1
> >>>Germany 8.4
> >>>USA 9.4
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You were saying ????
> >>>
> >>
> >>Do you know what an average is?
> >>
> >>Austria 10.8
> >>Belgium 14.6
> >>Czech Repub. 29.3
> >>France 9.9
> >>Greece 26.7
> >>Ireland 16.0
> >>Italy 10.9
> >>Slovenia 18.2
> >>
> >>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
> >>
> >>That will give you 11.4
> >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > You 'weight' the figures according to the populations.
> >
> > With the exception of France and Italy, all the above have small populations.
> > The largest of them, France has a rate only fractionally worse than the USA
> > (9.9/9.4).
> >
> > The Czech Republic for example has the worst rate but a tiny population. As a
> > former Eastern Bloc country I'd expect them to lag the rest of us a bit. Ditto
> > Slovenia.
>
> I would have thought the rates/billion km's would incorporate
> the driving population, not the national population, especially
> in Europe where the percentage of drivers, or driving miles,
> would be lower than in the US.
Depends what number you're looking for.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 11:41:45
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > writes:
>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > k Hickey wrote:
>> >>Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>> >>>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>> What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
>> That will give you 11.4
>No.
>You 'weight' the figures according to the populations.
You can't. It makes it an irrelevant metric.
You can try to normalise the traffic exposure risk by applying a
traffic density function, which is the number of vehicles divided by
road length... but while that's still applying exposure factors,
it's also just futzing about coming up with less-meaningful results.
The diversity of traffic conditions in "Europe" is as wide as it is
likely to get.
The point of "European driving" is to adopt _appropriate_
best-practice from wherever that may be.
>The Czech Republic for example has the worst rate but a tiny
>population. As a former Eastern Bloc country I'd expect them to lag
>the rest of us a bit. Ditto Slovenia.
Let's rip up the roads surfaces in the USA and see how they go on
e.g. "Slovenian roads".
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 11:43:42
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
>>
>>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
>>
>>That will give you 11.4
>
>
> No.
Yes.
>
> You 'weight' the figures according to the populations.
>
If you had read my own reks which you snipped, I addressed that issue.
> With the exception of France and Italy, all the above have small populations.
> The largest of them, France has a rate only fractionally worse than the USA
> (9.9/9.4).
11 million here (Greece), 8 million there (Austria) another 10 million
elsewhere (Belgium) and pretty soon it starts to add up.
I also don't see you complaining about the lack of numbers for Spain,
Portugal and Turkey.
Very interestink!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 19:08:31
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
> >>
> >>That will give you 11.4
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
NO ! It damn well won't.
If Europeans couldn't drive better with fewer accidents and fatalities than you
damn blowhard cowboys we *should* bow our heads in shame.
No need however !
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:17:19
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
>>>>
>>>>That will give you 11.4
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> NO ! It damn well won't.
>
Notice how you always have to snip most of my posts in your feeble
attempt to prove you're right.
> If Europeans couldn't drive better with fewer accidents and fatalities than you
> damn blowhard cowboys
Only if you pick and choose which Europeans count as Europeans for your
purposes.
> we *should* bow our heads in shame.
>
> No need however !
>
> Graham
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 20:46:31
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>
> >>>>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
> >>>>
> >>>>That will give you 11.4
> >>>
> >>>No.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> > NO ! It damn well won't.
>
> Notice how you always have to snip most of my posts in your feeble
> attempt to prove you're right.
You're an IDIOT !
You can't take a simple average of those numbers for 27 countries without taking
respect of the populations involved.
By your method the average of 1/2 and 1/8 would be 1/5.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:07:36
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>Notice how you always have to snip most of my posts in your feeble
>>attempt to prove you're right.
>
>
> You're an IDIOT !
>
Wow - resorting to calling other people names when the truth is pointed
out to you.
Is that meant to be a convincing argument?
> You can't take a simple average of those numbers for 27 countries without taking
> respect of the populations involved.
I adressed that in a previous post, but you just snipped it.
Tell us - did you even read what I wrote?
Or were you simply incapable of understanding it?
And as someone else already corrected you, you don't adjust for
population, you adjust for miles driven.
That's why it would be better to take Europe as a whole, rather than
just the individual countries (and then trying to adjust by weighting
their averages).
Of course, then you'd have to include all those countries that you don't
seem to think should be included as part of Europe for the purposes of
this statistic.
>
> By your method the average of 1/2 and 1/8 would be 1/5.
>
Actually, no - it would be 5/16.
> Graham
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 23:33:10
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> you don't adjust for population, you adjust for miles driven.
Whatever you think will present 'your' figures in a better light !
The fact is that Americans drive like retards and have lots of accidents as a result.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 22:38:30
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
>
>>you don't adjust for population, you adjust for miles driven.
>
>
> Whatever you think will present 'your' figures in a better light !
>
No, in fact they might NOT put 'my' figures in a better light. As I
stated in one of my earlier posts, but you conveniently snipped, we need
to take the figures as a whole, and I have not seen those figures.
It's about using objective measures, not cherry-picking statistics as
you did (i.e. where you only listed European countries with lower rates
per vehicle mile driven than the US while ignoring all the ones that didn't)
> The fact is that Americans drive like retards and have lots of accidents as a result.
>
And you know this based upon what you read on rad?
Certainly SOME Americans drive like "retards", but the numbers show that
there are lots of accidents in Europe as well.
> Graham
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 18:10:24
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > writes:
>Eeyore wrote:
>> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>>you don't adjust for population, you adjust for miles driven.
>> Whatever you think will present 'your' figures in a better light !
>No, in fact they might NOT put 'my' figures in a better light. As I
>stated in one of my earlier posts, but you conveniently snipped, we need
>to take the figures as a whole, and I have not seen those figures.
Rubbish.
Such figures are absolutely meaningless as they don't tell you
anything that's actually useful. Not unless your purpose is to pull
wool over people's eyes.
Europe represents 100 different "cultures" in dozens of countries at
various stages of economic development, economic resources and
levels of government (in)competence.
>It's about using objective measures, not cherry-picking statistics
>as you did (i.e. where you only listed European countries with
>lower rates per vehicle mile driven than the US while ignoring all
>the ones that didn't)
How is the average an objective figure? It doesn't say anything
useful about the real world. Is disassociates the value of the
figures of each country from the characteristics of the country and
gives you a figure that applies to "none of the above".
The average for Europe is a useless abstraction and *distraction*.
You may as well take the square root of the total number of pimples.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 07:38:38
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
>
>>>>you don't adjust for population, you adjust for miles driven.
>
>
>>>Whatever you think will present 'your' figures in a better light !
>
>
>>No, in fact they might NOT put 'my' figures in a better light. As I
>>stated in one of my earlier posts, but you conveniently snipped, we need
>>to take the figures as a whole, and I have not seen those figures.
>
>
> Rubbish.
>
> Such figures are absolutely meaningless as they don't tell you
> anything that's actually useful. Not unless your purpose is to pull
> wool over people's eyes.
>
> Europe represents 100 different "cultures" in dozens of countries at
> various stages of economic development, economic resources and
> levels of government (in)competence.
>
Then the initial premise is wrong and you cannot compare American
drivers to European drivers at all.
If that's the case, then Eeyore should object to comparing Americans to
Europeans, and instead say we should only compare American drivers to
English drivers - or German drivers. Instead, he cherry picks the
European countries which put the numbers in the most favorable (err -
favourable) light for his agenda.
Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from driving
in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting to lumping
all of the US together into one statistic?
>
>>It's about using objective measures, not cherry-picking statistics
>>as you did (i.e. where you only listed European countries with
>>lower rates per vehicle mile driven than the US while ignoring all
>>the ones that didn't)
>
>
> How is the average an objective figure? It doesn't say anything
> useful about the real world. Is disassociates the value of the
> figures of each country from the characteristics of the country and
> gives you a figure that applies to "none of the above".
It would seem that you and others want to lump Europe together as a
whole when it suits your agenda, but not when certain other countries
don't suit your whim.
>
> The average for Europe is a useless abstraction and *distraction*.
> You may as well take the square root of the total number of pimples.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 17:34:40
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
> >
> > Europe represents 100 different "cultures" in dozens of countries at
> > various stages of economic development, economic resources and
> > levels of government (in)competence.
>
> Then the initial premise is wrong and you cannot compare American
> drivers to European drivers at all.
Doesn't the USA also have 100 or so different cultures ?
> If that's the case, then Eeyore should object to comparing Americans to
> Europeans, and instead say we should only compare American drivers to
> English drivers - or German drivers. Instead, he cherry picks the
> European countries which put the numbers in the most favorable (err -
> favourable) light for his agenda.
The British rate is the 2nd lowest.
I'll use that figure if you want.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 00:17:29
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > writes:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>>>>>you don't adjust for population, you adjust for miles driven.
>>>>Whatever you think will present 'your' figures in a better light !
>>>No, in fact they might NOT put 'my' figures in a better light. As I
>>>stated in one of my earlier posts, but you conveniently snipped, we need
>>>to take the figures as a whole, and I have not seen those figures.
>> Rubbish.
>> Such figures are absolutely meaningless as they don't tell you
>> anything that's actually useful. Not unless your purpose is to pull
>> wool over people's eyes.
>> Europe represents 100 different "cultures" in dozens of countries at
>> various stages of economic development, economic resources and
>> levels of government (in)competence.
>Then the initial premise is wrong and you cannot compare American
>drivers to European drivers at all.
You can't use the stats to compare drivers. You can use the stats to
compare effectiveness of the totality of policies, driver education
and road user attitudes within each jurisdiction; but NOT absolute
values between jurisdictions. Such a comparison would require all
other things being equal; and that is definitely not so.
The only reasonably-valid comparisons are in trends between
jurisdictions; i.e. the rate of change of fatalties, serious
injuries and major crashes with respect to risk exposure.
>If that's the case, then Eeyore should object to comparing Americans to
>Europeans, and instead say we should only compare American drivers to
>English drivers - or German drivers. Instead, he cherry picks the
>European countries which put the numbers in the most favorable (err -
>favourable) light for his agenda.
If he points out that lane discipline is superior in some countries
and that certain laws such as prohibiting passing on the slow side
dramatically reduce the number of particular types of crashes, then
that is valid. It would be the same if *you* did so.
>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from driving
>in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting to lumping
>all of the US together into one statistic?
Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
>>>It's about using objective measures, not cherry-picking statistics
>>>as you did (i.e. where you only listed European countries with
>>>lower rates per vehicle mile driven than the US while ignoring all
>>>the ones that didn't)
>> How is the average an objective figure? It doesn't say anything
>> useful about the real world. Is disassociates the value of the
>> figures of each country from the characteristics of the country and
>> gives you a figure that applies to "none of the above".
>It would seem that you and others want to lump Europe together as a
>whole when it suits your agenda, but not when certain other countries
>don't suit your whim.
Moi?
The Induhvidual debating technique involves four steps:
1. Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute.
2. Make an inappropriate analogy.
3. Change the topic to something easier to defend.
4. Claim victory.
(Douglas Adams)
You're about to introduce point 3.
>> The average for Europe is a useless abstraction and *distraction*.
>> You may as well take the square root of the total number of pimples.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 09:14:51
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from driving
>>in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting to lumping
>>all of the US together into one statistic?
>
>
> Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
>
> The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
>
Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 09:56:42
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > writes:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>>>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from driving
>>>in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting to lumping
>>>all of the US together into one statistic?
>> Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
>> The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
>Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
>quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
Different traffic laws? Other sources of _Federal_ road funding?
Do tell.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 18:08:20
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
>>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>
>>>"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
>
>>>>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from driving
>>>>in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting to lumping
>>>>all of the US together into one statistic?
>
>
>>>Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
>
>
>>>The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
>
>
>>Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
>>quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
>
>
> Different traffic laws?
I'm sure there are some traffic laws that are different between all
three of those jurisdictions.
Yes, I'm sure many are the same too, just as many of the traffic laws in
Europe are the same.
> Other sources of _Federal_ road funding?
State and local funding. You may not be aware of this, but Montana is a
separate state from California (where LA is located) and New York (where
NYC is located).
Not all funding of public roads comes from the federal government.
HTH
>
> Do tell.
Furthermore "culture" is not solely defined by the government.
A rancher in Montana is not going to drive like the typical commuter in
LA. The typical commuter in NYC is also much more likely to take the
subway than one in LA - or Montana.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 21:52:52
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > writes:
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>>>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>>>>>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from
>>>>>driving in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not
>>>>>objecting to lumping all of the US together into one statistic?
>>>>Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
>>>>The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
>>>Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
>>>quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
>> Different traffic laws?
>I'm sure there are some traffic laws that are different between all
>three of those jurisdictions.
There is no fundamental difference.
>Yes, I'm sure many are the same too, just as many of the traffic
>laws in Europe are the same.
Nothing like it. In some countries, you can drive any reasonable
speed on motorways. In others, you are almost subject to sumy
execution if you do.
In some countries, they even drive on the other side of the road.
>> Other sources of _Federal_ road funding?
>State and local funding. You may not be aware of this, but Montana
>is a separate state from California (where LA is located) and New
>York (where NYC is located).
So federal highway funding is a drop in the bucket?
North-Rhine-Westphalia is also a different state to Bavaria; but
within the same country. They also have their own funding for their
respective states. They even have a few distinct traffic
regulations; which are largely immaterial in terms of road safety.
There's a common official language. But then notionally, a few other
countries share the same language. Those other countries have
distinct road cultures. Different laws reflecting their nation's
values.
>Not all funding of public roads comes from the federal government.
>HTH
>> Do tell.
>Furthermore "culture" is not solely defined by the government.
>A rancher in Montana is not going to drive like the typical
>commuter in LA. The typical commuter in NYC is also much more
>likely to take the subway than one in LA - or Montana.
Culture is nurtured or oppressed by government policies. The way
that laws are applied is part of government policies.
Culture is much wider than what laws regulate; it even encompasses
the nuances of language. It is general bourne out in tradition and
established attitudes as well as social mores. What people wear can
affect how they drive. What people eat can affect how they drive.
The music or the radio stations to which they listen can also do
that. Thos things shape attitude and mood.
Well beyond laws. And why I used the term "culture" instead of law.
Vocabulary has a purpose.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 19:20:04
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Bernd Felsche wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
>>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>
>>>"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>>>
>>>>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
>
>>>>>>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from
>>>>>>driving in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not
>>>>>>objecting to lumping all of the US together into one statistic?
>
>
>>>>>Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
>
>
>>>>>The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
>
>
>>>>Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
>>>>quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
>
>
>>>Different traffic laws?
>
>
>>I'm sure there are some traffic laws that are different between all
>>three of those jurisdictions.
>
>
> There is no fundamental difference.
>
Laws against keeping right except to pass, perhaps? I don't
specifically about those jurisdictions, but I understand that here in CO
cops cannot enforce it unless the speed limit is 75.
Seat belt laws being a priy or secondary offense is another possibility.
These may seem minor, but they are but 2 examples of different
enforcement of similar laws which may exist in the areas mentioned.
>
>>Yes, I'm sure many are the same too, just as many of the traffic
>>laws in Europe are the same.
>
>
> Nothing like it.
I'd bet that they are more similar than different.
> In some countries, you can drive any reasonable
> speed on motorways.
Even in Germany, there are often speed limits in effect.
> In others, you are almost subject to sumy
> execution if you do.
>
> In some countries, they even drive on the other side of the road.
>
Does that really make a big difference?
>
>>>Other sources of _Federal_ road funding?
>
>
>>State and local funding. You may not be aware of this, but Montana
>>is a separate state from California (where LA is located) and New
>>York (where NYC is located).
>
>
> So federal highway funding is a drop in the bucket?
Not at all, but neither does it pay entirely for roads, especially in
urban areas.
Also, the budgets of the places in question are vastly different and
different priorities and philosophies will lead to differences among them.
>
> North-Rhine-Westphalia is also a different state to Bavaria; but
> within the same country. They also have their own funding for their
> respective states. They even have a few distinct traffic
> regulations; which are largely immaterial in terms of road safety.
>
> There's a common official language. But then notionally, a few other
> countries share the same language. Those other countries have
> distinct road cultures. Different laws reflecting their nation's
> values.
>
>
>>Not all funding of public roads comes from the federal government.
>
>
>>HTH
>
>
>>>Do tell.
>
>
>>Furthermore "culture" is not solely defined by the government.
>
>
>>A rancher in Montana is not going to drive like the typical
>>commuter in LA. The typical commuter in NYC is also much more
>>likely to take the subway than one in LA - or Montana.
>
>
> Culture is nurtured or oppressed by government policies.
Are you claiming the LA city council represents the Montana state
legislature?
You don't think economics, lifestyle or livelihoods of people affect
culture?
> The way
> that laws are applied is part of government policies.
>
> Culture is much wider than what laws regulate; it even encompasses
> the nuances of language. It is general bourne out in tradition and
> established attitudes as well as social mores. What people wear can
> affect how they drive. What people eat can affect how they drive.
> The music or the radio stations to which they listen can also do
> that. Thos things shape attitude and mood.
>
> Well beyond laws. And why I used the term "culture" instead of law.
> Vocabulary has a purpose.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 13:06:42
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <Pe2dnbh2zumg-GDYnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > wrote:
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
> > "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
> >>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from
> >>driving in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting
> >>to lumping all of the US together into one statistic?
> >
> >
> > Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
> >
> > The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
> >
>
> Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
> quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
Or one culture in just about any other way, for that matter.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 17:41:00
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
> > "Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam> writes:
>
> >>Similarly, however, driving in NYC or LA is very different from driving
> >>in rural Montana or New Mexico. Why are you not objecting to lumping
> >>all of the US together into one statistic?
> >
> > Almost every country has diverse geography and traffic densities.
> >
> > The commonality is: One road culture; one jurisdiction.
> >
>
> Rural Montana is not in the same jurisdiction as LA or NYC and it's
> quite a stretch to say that they share "one road culture".
Do you have road safety figures by state ?
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:54:29
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>
> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> than the average of Europe,
You mean you can't read ?
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 10:52:42
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
k Hickey wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>george conklin wrote:
>
>
>>>> So look up fatality rates on the web. They are higher per mile in
>>>>Europe as a whole.
>>>
>>>Cite? Numbers I've seen are either about equal or actually lower for
>>>most European countries.
>>
>>you know. like these ones.
>>
>>http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
>
>
> That pretty much sums it up. The rate per mile in the US is lower
> than the average of Europe, but Americans drive a LOT more miles,
> making the death rate per person higher.
>
> Imagine if this was a central political issue in a national election
> in the US. Whichever side was trying to paint the situation as
> horrific would site the fact the death rate in the US is over twice as
> high as Germany - "elect me so I can stop the carnage", while the
> other candidate would be saying "I've made our roads almost three
> times safer than Greece".... and they'd both be right, yet no one
> would actually have a clue what the reality is.
>
> k Hickey
> Habanero Cycles
> http://www.habcycles.com
> Home of the $795 ti frame
welll... sort of.
The only numbers that are really valid for comparison purposes are the
rightmost ones; those don't paint the US in a very good light.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 21:53:00
From: Bonehenge (B A R R Y)
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
On Fri, 16 2007 16:51:21 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:
>
>You're sadly out of date. The autobahn is safer per distance traveled
>than the US interstate. Why? Driver discpline with an absence of MFFY
>behavior.
>
I was in Iceland two weeks ago.
I would easily say that the driving in and around Reykjavik was 10
times better than what I see daily in the US. Easy...
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 21:17:15
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
> > would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
> > anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
> > for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
> > that."
>
>
> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and ignoring yield
signs for example.
Graham
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 00:33:02
From: Marlene Blanshay
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>>> would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
>>> anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>>> for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>>> that."
>>
>> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>
> How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and ignoring yield
> signs for example.
>
> Graham
>
one thing i've noticed about american drivers is that they tend to drive
very close to the curb. Quite a few times i've been missed by what seems
like an inch by visiting americans... this on a road designated as a
shared road and scenic route. And i've noticed it in some american
cities- drivers hug the curbs like crazy!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:24:37
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"lene Blanshay" <blanshay@videotron.ca > wrote in message
news:94LKh.21267$cw1.347876@wagner.videotron.net...
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> george conklin wrote:
>>
>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>>>> would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
>>>> anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>>>> for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>>>> that."
>>>
>>> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>>
>> How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and
>> ignoring yield
>> signs for example.
>>
>> Graham
>>
> one thing i've noticed about american drivers is that they tend to drive
> very close to the curb. Quite a few times i've been missed by what seems
> like an inch by visiting americans... this on a road designated as a
> shared road and scenic route. And i've noticed it in some american cities-
> drivers hug the curbs like crazy!
I was once standing on the sidewalk in Paris and was knocked backwards and
over by a truck's overhang. He was on the curb, and kept going too. Being
young at the time, I was not hurt, but I could have easily been killed.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:49:16
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> I was once standing on the sidewalk in Paris and was knocked backwards and
> over by a truck's overhang.
A shame he didn't get you really.
Graham
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 00:52:29
From: Brent P
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <94LKh.21267$cw1.347876@wagner.videotron.net >, lene Blanshay wrote:
> one thing i've noticed about american drivers is that they tend to drive
> very close to the curb. Quite a few times i've been missed by what seems
> like an inch by visiting americans... this on a road designated as a
> shared road and scenic route. And i've noticed it in some american
> cities- drivers hug the curbs like crazy!
What cities would that be? Here in the chicago area average drivers make
wide-ass turns. Sometimes a simple left hand turn has them sliding out
three lanes.... They have to sit and wait for huge gaps to make right on
red turns because they can't keep their car in the near lane for a right
turn and instead need a minimum of two lanes to complete it. I'd like to
see some 'curb hugging'.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 22:33:24
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
lene Blanshay wrote:
> one thing i've noticed about american drivers is that they tend to drive
> very close to the curb. Quite a few times i've been missed by what seems
> like an inch by visiting americans... this on a road designated as a
> shared road and scenic route. And i've noticed it in some american
> cities- drivers hug the curbs like crazy!
I've never noticed this - if you've seen it among Americans driving in
the UK, perhaps it's because of their not being used to the reversed
situation with both the steering wheel and the road (Right hand drive
and left hand driving).
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 21:06:22
From: Marlene Blanshay
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Fred G. Mackey wrote:
> lene Blanshay wrote:
>
>> one thing i've noticed about american drivers is that they tend to
>> drive very close to the curb. Quite a few times i've been missed by
>> what seems like an inch by visiting americans... this on a road
>> designated as a shared road and scenic route. And i've noticed it in
>> some american cities- drivers hug the curbs like crazy!
>
> I've never noticed this - if you've seen it among Americans driving in
> the UK, perhaps it's because of their not being used to the reversed
> situation with both the steering wheel and the road (Right hand drive
> and left hand driving).
>
not in the uk, canada...
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 22:20:53
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45FB095B.E5E1AFB2@hotmail.com...
>
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>> > would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
>> > anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>> > for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>> > that."
>>
>>
>> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>
> How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and ignoring
> yield
> signs for example.
>
> Graham
Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I first
started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe. They have
fallen since. The nonsense, "If they do it in Europe it must be better"
just has to stop. We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 22:37:44
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > george conklin wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
> >> > would be a better place to live in and there would be less road rage,
> >> > anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
> >> > for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
> >> > that."
> >>
> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
> >
> > How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and ignoring
> > yield
> > signs for example.
>
> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I first
> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe.
I rather doubt that.
> They have fallen since. The nonsense, "If they do it in Europe it must be
> better"
> just has to stop. We don't need 40,000 more dead American per year.
UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third of the US
rate when adjusted for population. I don't believe it's much worse in most of
the major European countries either.
Bear in mind our roads are far busier too.
Graham
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:23:02
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45FB1C38.A1A25FC5@hotmail.com...
>
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > george conklin wrote:
>> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> If we drove like the Europeans did, this country
>> >> > would be a better place to live in and there would be less road
>> >> > rage,
>> >> > anger, fighting and all the other things that our country is known
>> >> > for, such as fighting unnecessary wars (Iraq) and other things like
>> >> > that."
>> >>
>> >> If we drove like Europeans, our deaths on the highway would double.
>> >
>> > How so ? European drivers aren't known for jumping red lights and
>> > ignoring
>> > yield
>> > signs for example.
>>
>> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I first
>> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe.
>
> I rather doubt that.
>
That is because you are ignorant.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:48:42
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > george conklin wrote:
> >
> >> Death rates per 100 million miles are freely available. When I first
> >> started tracking such rates, they were 10 times higher in Europe.
> >
> > I rather doubt that.
> >
> That is because you are ignorant.
No it's because you're an utter prick.
Here's my figures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
Where are yours ?
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:07:23
From: Fred G. Mackey
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> No it's because you're an utter prick.
>
> Here's my figures.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
Ah yes - the old reliable wikipedia.
Did you edit the article before posting the link?
>
> Where are yours ?
>
> Graham
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:42:42
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > No it's because you're an utter prick.
> >
> > Here's my figures.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
>
> Ah yes - the old reliable wikipedia.
>
> Did you edit the article before posting the link?
NO
Are the facts not to your liking ?
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:16:23
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Fred G. Mackey" <nospam@dont.spam > wrote in message
news:TIWdne0MG_ZznmHYnZ2dnUVZ_qTinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>>
>> No it's because you're an utter prick.
>>
>> Here's my figures.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_safety
>
> Ah yes - the old reliable wikipedia.
>
> Did you edit the article before posting the link?
>
>>
>> Where are yours ?
>>
>> Graham
>>
Wikipedia is unrefereed, and in general an embarrassment to the world of
knowledge. Try the offical sources: Europe's death rate per 1 billion
kilometers is 13.1, which translates out as higher than the USA.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:45:43
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> >> Where are yours [numbers] ?
>
> Wikipedia is unrefereed
As are you !
Where are your numbers ?
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 13:17:56
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:45FC1B37.6E80ECC@hotmail.com...
>
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>> > Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> >> Where are yours [numbers] ?
>>
>> Wikipedia is unrefereed
>
> As are you !
>
> Where are your numbers ?
>
> Graham
Actually, every page has a discussion going on in the background about how
valid the facts presented in that page are. So, to that extent it is
refereed WAY more than an article that is put out and THEN gets comment, but
that then will be cited in its original form pretty much forever.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 20:18:51
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <45FB1C38.A1A25FC5@hotmail.com >,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third of the US
>rate when adjusted for population.
Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 14:39:44
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third of the US
> >rate when adjusted for population.
>
> Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
The US rate is still worse but I fail to see the relevance of doing that..
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 10:51:31
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third of the US
>>>rate when adjusted for population.
>>
>>Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
>
>
> The US rate is still worse but I fail to see the relevance of doing that..
>
> Graham
>
It's a fairer statistic because it allows for differences in population,
vehicle ownership, vehicle use etc.
You are right, in most cases the US rate is comparable or worse.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:14:57
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net > wrote in message
news:etgv9i0ael@news2.newsguy.com...
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third
>>>>of the US
>>>>rate when adjusted for population.
>>>
>>>Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
>>
>>
>> The US rate is still worse but I fail to see the relevance of doing
>> that..
>>
>> Graham
>>
>
> It's a fairer statistic because it allows for differences in population,
> vehicle ownership, vehicle use etc.
>
> You are right, in most cases the US rate is comparable or worse.
> nate
Actually at best it even, but the 13.1 rate for Europe as a whole (per
billion kilometers) would translate out as worse for us.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:44:44
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> the 13.1 rate for Europe as a whole (per billion kilometers) would translate
> out as worse for us.
There is no 13.1 rate for Europe.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 11:39:06
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
george conklin wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote in message
> news:etgv9i0ael@news2.newsguy.com...
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third
>>>>>of the US
>>>>>rate when adjusted for population.
>>>>
>>>>Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>The US rate is still worse but I fail to see the relevance of doing
>>>that..
>>>
>>>Graham
>>>
>>
>>It's a fairer statistic because it allows for differences in population,
>>vehicle ownership, vehicle use etc.
>>
>>You are right, in most cases the US rate is comparable or worse.
>>nate
>
>
> Actually at best it even, but the 13.1 rate for Europe as a whole (per
> billion kilometers) would translate out as worse for us.
>
>
That's including a lot of countries that are technically considered part
of Europe that have notoriously poor roads, drivers, etc. - if you only
consider western and northern European countries, things look a lot
different. If you consider Germany in particular, it's about even
despite the much higher travel speeds there, which should show what
proper driving can accomplish.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 16:57:19
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> george conklin wrote:
>
> > Actually at best it even, but the 13.1 rate for Europe as a whole (per
> > billion kilometers) would translate out as worse for us.
>
> That's including a lot of countries that are technically considered part
> of Europe that have notoriously poor roads, drivers, etc.
Not to mention excluding their tiny populations.
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:19:02
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>george conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually at best it even, but the 13.1 rate for Europe as a whole (per
>>>billion kilometers) would translate out as worse for us.
>>
>>That's including a lot of countries that are technically considered part
>>of Europe that have notoriously poor roads, drivers, etc.
>
>
> Not to mention excluding their tiny populations.
>
> Graham
>
Well, to get a true average you should weight not by population but by
total VMT (or vehicle-kilometer-traveled) for each country. But I do
see your point.
Where are you finding a weighted average for Europe as a whole?
anyway, to those that claim that "the US is safer" check out the IRTAD
link I posted earlier; especially when considering only "motorways"
(highways) the only countries less safe than the US for which statistics
are given are Austria, Belgium (barely,) the Czech Republic, Hungary,
Portugal, aand Slovenia. The only real surprises (to me) are Austria
and Belgium...
*every* other country listed has a lower weighted death rate on
motorways than the US. Anyone who thinks that we don't have some
serious work to do to improve our road safety has his head in the sand.
We have some of the best highways in the world and yet our death rate
is average at best.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:02:56
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about one third of the US
> >>>rate when adjusted for population.
> >>
> >>Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
> >
> > The US rate is still worse but I fail to see the relevance of doing that..
>
>
> It's a fairer statistic because it allows for differences in population,
> vehicle ownership, vehicle use etc.
But is it fairer ?
US roads are *empty* by European standards. How the heck do you ever have accidents ?
> You are right, in most cases the US rate is comparable or worse.
Worse.
What puzzles me is that the per veh-km figures suggest that US drivers drive 30,000 mi
a year on average (2.5x the UK average).
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 21:21:10
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
In article <45FC0320.ABA1D436@hotmail.com >,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
>US roads are *empty* by European standards. How the heck do you ever
>have accidents ?
You earlier presented the Scandanavian countries as paragons of
safety, and you have the nerve to ask that?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 12:28:05
From: Eeyore
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >US roads are *empty* by European standards. How the heck do you ever
> >have accidents ?
>
> You earlier presented the Scandanavian countries as paragons of
> safety, and you have the nerve to ask that?
Having been to Scandinavia I can assure you that the quality of driving I
encountered there was indeed first class.
" Sweden has become the recognised world leader in road safety policy. On October
9, 1997 the Road Traffic Safety Bill founded on "Vision Zero" was passed by a
majority in the Swedish Parliament. It represents a paradigm shift in road
traffic safety and is based on four principles:
ethics: human life and health are paramount and take priority over mobility and
other objectives of the road traffic system;
responsibility: providers and regulators of the road traffic system share
responsibility with users;
safety: road traffic systems should take account of human fallibility and
minimize both the opportunities for errors and the harm done when they occur; and
mechanisms for change: providers and regulators must do their utmost to guarantee
the safety of all citizens; they must cooperate with road users; and all three
must be ready to change to achieve safety. "
http://www.sei.se/visionzero/moreinfo.htm
Graham
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 13:01:57
From: Bernd Felsche
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com > writes:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >US roads are *empty* by European standards. How the heck do you
>> >ever have accidents ?
>> You earlier presented the Scandanavian countries as paragons of
>> safety, and you have the nerve to ask that?
>Having been to Scandinavia I can assure you that the quality of
>driving I encountered there was indeed first class.
>" Sweden has become the recognised world leader in road safety
>policy. On October 9, 1997 the Road Traffic Safety Bill founded on
>"Vision Zero" was passed by a majority in the Swedish Parliament.
>It represents a paradigm shift in road traffic safety and is based
>on four principles:
>ethics: human life and health are paramount and take priority over
>mobility and other objectives of the road traffic system;
>responsibility: providers and regulators of the road traffic system
>share responsibility with users;
>safety: road traffic systems should take account of human
>fallibility and minimize both the opportunities for errors and the
>harm done when they occur; and
>mechanisms for change: providers and regulators must do their
>utmost to guarantee the safety of all citizens; they must cooperate
>with road users; and all three must be ready to change to achieve
>safety. "
>http://www.sei.se/visionzero/moreinfo.htm
"Zero vision". :-)
Something like the 3 laws of robotics, the expectation is that
everybody has full insight into the full consequences of their
actions. Even if they have "total perspective", then they must
balance the definite life and health purposes of their travel
against the possible life and health consequences *if* something
goes wrong. (Keeping in mind that seldom are crashes caused by
_one_ thing going wrong.)
Sweden's road safety history hasn't been "brilliant" in terms of
continuous improvement since 1997.
The policy is by no means novel. Germany's Road Traffic Regulations
(StVO) have the same, salient road user obligations identified as
the first article.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 11:18:40
From: Nate Nagel
Subject: Re: Why don't American drivers drive like Europeans?
|
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> UK annual road deaths are a fraction over 3000. That's about
>>>>> one third of the US rate when adjusted for population.
>>>>
>>>> Try adjusting for miles driven instead.
>>>
>>> The US rate is still worse but I fail to see the relevance of
>>> doing that..
>>
>>
>> It's a fairer statistic because it allows for differences in
>> population, vehicle ownership, vehicle use etc.
>
>
> But is it fairer ?
>
> US roads are *empty* by European standards. How the heck do you ever
> have accidents ?
>
Most of the vehicles are concentrated around urban areas; I grew up in a
semi-rural area and you are right, it was difficult to find another car
to bump into (usually.) However, where I live now (near DC) traffic
might not be quite as congested as you're used to, but probably close to
it. And people wreck ALL THE GODDAMN TIME. Saw a car last night that
had apparently attempted to change lanes in some icy slush, lost it, and
kissed both ends into the guardrail... oddly enough I was traveling at
the speed limit (55 MPH) in my company car (which has shitty Goodyear
tires on it, but I can't replace them until they hit the wear bars) and
managed to maintain perfect control through several lane changes.
>
>
>> You are right, in most cases the US rate is comparable or worse.
>
>
> Worse.
>
> What puzzles me is that the per veh-km figures suggest that US
> drivers drive 30,000 mi a year on average (2.5x the UK average).
I think the *average* is more like 15,000 (that's a rectal number, I
didn't bother to look it up) but for instance I'm probably somewhere
around 35 to 40,000 miles a year. Most of that in heavy, urban traffic.
Sometimes I think I must be insane, because I enjoy driving a lot less
than I used to.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 11:17:39
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Concrete jungle
|
On 15, 9:39 pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net > wrote:
> > There you go again---"asphalt jungle...."
>
> He is probably an urban militant who lives in the concrete jungle.-
Sort of...
"The city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo"
Concrete jungle
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term concrete jungle is often used to refer to a city, or an area
of a city, with many tower blocks or tenement flats made of brick and
concrete.
In the UK the term is sometimes associated with crime and a way of
life that is indigenous to inner city living.
The term was used by Bob ley in his song "Concrete Jungle". The
song, originally recorded in the late 1960s, was re-recorded on the
The Wailers' breakthrough record "Catch A Fire" in 1972. The song
depicts the ghetto lifestyle of Jamaicans. However, the term's popular
usage probably originated with British zoologist Desmond Morris, who
wrote "The city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo" in his
best-selling book, The Human Zoo, first published 1969 by Jonathan
Cape. Morris may well have derived the term from Upton Sinclair who
coined the phrase asphalt jungle in his novel The Jungle published
1906.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_jungle
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 10:53:32
From: Olebiker
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On Apr 3, 9:26 am, "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us > wrote:
> Since this whole thing has started, Catholics (at least in my Diocese)
> have included the Prayer for Peace in the service. Also, Catholics
> tend to be VERY anti-death penalty.
My choir includes some version of a song about peace at every Mass we
sing. A couple of folks in our parish are upset with us complaining
that we are making a political statement. We tell them that we are
making a statement of faith.
Dick Durbin
Tallahassee
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:17:23
From: Bill
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
Olebiker wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:26 am, "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>> Since this whole thing has started, Catholics (at least in my Diocese)
>> have included the Prayer for Peace in the service. Also, Catholics
>> tend to be VERY anti-death penalty.
>
> My choir includes some version of a song about peace at every Mass we
> sing. A couple of folks in our parish are upset with us complaining
> that we are making a political statement. We tell them that we are
> making a statement of faith.
>
> Dick Durbin
> Tallahassee
>
>
What my point was, is that the president has been pandering to the
religious right and he is just going through the motions to try to keep
his religious voter base. One God, way too many religions.
It does seem as though Bush is following the Pope closely, maybe just to
push some voter buttons???
I'm an independent on politics and religion, total middle of the road.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 06:26:37
From: Pat
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On Apr 2, 10:06 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> >>> When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
> >>> whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
> >> Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to life."
> >> or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to have
> >> gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and some
> >> other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually evaluate
> >> all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
>
> > Who said religion is a trivial thing?
>
> >> I hate politics.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> I didn't say religion was trivial. Basing who is going to run or ruin
> this country based on a single religious belief that the Vatican says
> stem cell research is immoral only tells me that separation of church
> and state as per the Constitution isn't happening. Other countries are
> leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
> president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
> Religion is NOT trivial.
> Politics is NOT trivial, but should be agnostic.
> Simple in concept but not in real life.
> Bill Baka
Woa. Prez can talk to God through Pope? Wrong religion. Pope is
Catholic. Bush is ... I don't know what, but definately NOT Catholic.
Since this whole thing has started, Catholics (at least in my Diocese)
have included the Prayer for Peace in the service. Also, Catholics
tend to be VERY anti-death penalty.
We could only pray that Bush would embrace Catholic ideals. Not all
of them, but some of the major ones would be nice.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 09:13:21
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1175606797.394367.55820@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 2, 10:06 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>> > On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>> >>> When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
>> >>> whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
>> >> Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to
>> >> life."
>> >> or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to have
>> >> gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and some
>> >> other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually
>> >> evaluate
>> >> all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
>>
>> > Who said religion is a trivial thing?
>>
>> >> I hate politics.
>> >> Bill Baka
>>
>> I didn't say religion was trivial. Basing who is going to run or ruin
>> this country based on a single religious belief that the Vatican says
>> stem cell research is immoral only tells me that separation of church
>> and state as per the Constitution isn't happening. Other countries are
>> leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
>> president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
>> Religion is NOT trivial.
>> Politics is NOT trivial, but should be agnostic.
>> Simple in concept but not in real life.
>> Bill Baka
>
>
> Woa. Prez can talk to God through Pope? Wrong religion. Pope is
> Catholic. Bush is ... I don't know what, but definately NOT Catholic.
>
> Since this whole thing has started, Catholics (at least in my Diocese)
> have included the Prayer for Peace in the service. Also, Catholics
> tend to be VERY anti-death penalty.
>
> We could only pray that Bush would embrace Catholic ideals. Not all
> of them, but some of the major ones would be nice.
My understanding is that Catholics and Protestants are simply different
"flavors" of the same religion.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 20:52:14
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Concrete jungle
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174069059.390515.286470@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 15, 9:39 pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> > There you go again---"asphalt jungle...."
>>
>> He is probably an urban militant who lives in the concrete jungle.-
>
> Sort of...
>
> "The city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo"
>
> Concrete jungle
>>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> The term concrete jungle is often used to refer to a city, or an area
> of a city, with many tower blocks or tenement flats made of brick and
> concrete.
>
> In the UK the term is sometimes associated with crime and a way of
> life that is indigenous to inner city living.
>
> The term was used by Bob ley in his song "Concrete Jungle". The
> song, originally recorded in the late 1960s, was re-recorded on the
> The Wailers' breakthrough record "Catch A Fire" in 1972. The song
> depicts the ghetto lifestyle of Jamaicans. However, the term's popular
> usage probably originated with British zoologist Desmond Morris, who
> wrote "The city is not a concrete jungle, it is a human zoo" in his
> best-selling book, The Human Zoo, first published 1969 by Jonathan
> Cape. Morris may well have derived the term from Upton Sinclair who
> coined the phrase asphalt jungle in his novel The Jungle published
> 1906.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_jungle
>
That is an un-refereed source, but we do know the term is in widespread use.
One of the older defintions of a city is an area which is dominated by
man-made environment. IE: not natural or rural.
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 11:10:18
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 16, 2:29 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > Just getting abusive and pretending you don't know what is meant by
> > "fixed route" and "stop constantly" is not making your argument any
> > more credible. However, I will humor you: A Philadelphia transit bus
> > runs a route which is fixed. It does not matter if there is a more
> > direct way or faster way to get a passenger to his destination, the
> > bus runs the same route regardless. Furthermore, the bus will stop
> > every block to let passengers on and off, regardless of any signals.
>
> I guess I will throw some gasoline on the fire. Once when I "HAD" to get
> from Sacramento to my little hick town 45 miles to the north I managed
> to average over 100 MPH on a 65 MPH highway with other cars. If you have
> a fast car and know how to drive you can do it. I sure couldn't do that
> with a bicycle or public transportation, which is non-existent between
> the 2 urban areas.
> Am I a reckless driver? No. A friend was in the hospital and I only
> passed at 70 then pegged it until the next car.
> I own 3 cars, one Kia (boring), one Mazda (stick at least), and one
> really fast 1966 Chrysler that gets maybe 11 MPG.
> I still prefer the bikes, so that is my redemption.
> Bill Baka
You are right, Bill. You are an example of MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION,
wich is the wave of the future --if they let us have one...
(let me recycle here some post that some may find interesting)
On 15, 7:52 pm, "aemeijers" <aemeij...@att.net > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173987027.440918.259900@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> On 15, 12:47 pm, catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
> (snip)
> > And thinking. And organizing. MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION would be a
> > nice way to go, if most people were given THE CHOICE. I know it sounds
> > scary to the hungry dinosaur, but that's the way to go toward
> > efficiency. There should be a place for bikes, public transportation,
> > and why not, SUVs --either with higher taxes or stricter license or
> > both.
>
> And who is gonna pay for all these magical new mass transit systems? Absent
> massive subsidies, you are talking several bucks minimum per ride. At that
> price point, people strongly prefer the route and schedule freedom of
> personal transportation. The bus system here compressed their service
> district and times last year because all the perimeter routes were
> persistant money losers. Study after study has shown mass transit only works
> in areas of high population density- big cities, compact college campuses,
> and the like.
I guess the government, if ever there will be one that has the right
priorities. So far there's little thought about that. If we got a
HUNGRY LION his first thought wouldn't be to be rational, but to go
and grab more oil wherever he can. And that's how we ended up in Iraq.
But one problem we got is similar to the question of the egg and the
chicken. Density is not there because the planning went into building
around the car: THE SPRAWL. So the sprawl was first and then no amount
of public transportation can possibly cover the area that, by design,
is all spread out.
There's hope though: A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CAN HAVE BUSES
AND TRAINS ALONG CORRIDORS and from there local transportation can
include cars, minibuses and bicycles. WHAT WE NEED IS POLITICAL WILL,
and that, you know, is nowhere to be found...
'Yes, we need to fight a war, but no, the enemy is not Iraq... The
enemy is oil with 65+ percent of the known oil reserves in the
politically unstable, "Death to America"-chanting Middel East. Imagine
the advances the United States could make to world stability and
developing domestic employment opportunities if it spent the $79+
billion Congress recently approved for Bush's Iraq war on alternative
energy subsidies and investment. Might this be a better way to fight
terrorism, support our troops, and regain world favor?'
-Jay Lustgarten (Source: World Press Review, letters)
>
> Don't get me wrong- I <like> buses, and used them extensively living at a
> big-ten college. In this town, however, even when I lived right on the bus
> line, taking it to work turned a ten-minute commute into an hour each way,
> including a 20-minute outside wait for the transfer downtown. I haven't got
> that many years left. And yes, I did suggest to my employer (around 2000
> people on site), and the city, that they look into a morning and afternoon
> circle route shuttle targeted at the apartment complexes and neighborhoods
> with high employee concentrations. An almost door-to-door bus trip, even if
> it was a little longer time-wise than driving, would likely have attracted
> many riders. My suggestion vanished without a trace.
It ain't surprising...
RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
of choice...
"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
And this one...
"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
more...
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote88
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 20:45:38
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174068618.732003.215660@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
. Density is not there because the planning went into building
> around the car: THE SPRAWL.
Historically you are wrong. Density in cities has been declining sincde
1840. That is well before cars. The modern city would not have been
possible with the density of even 1900. Industry left cities due to the
high costs density imposed on it.
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2007 12:57:00
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: romantic and scary
|
On 15, 2:21 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173982571.731703.101450@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 15, 12:27 pm, catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to look
> >> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many commercials
> >> > and too little real life.
>
> >> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
> >> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
> >> hybrids built by Toyota.
>
> > I understand what you are saying, but the above statement could be
> > used by the predators of the asphalt jungle to claim they need an SUV
>
> There you go again---"asphalt jungle...."
It sounds romantic and scary, you know. (Romantic if you own an SUV,
and scary if you ride a bike or smaller vehicle.)
|
| |
Date: 15 Mar 2007 11:16:11
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
On 15, 12:27 pm, catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to look
> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many commercials
> > and too little real life.
>
> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
> hybrids built by Toyota.
I understand what you are saying, but the above statement could be
used by the predators of the asphalt jungle to claim they need an SUV
in an environment where others are driving SUVs. In fact, many claim
that they got an SUV to be safe, where safety got little to do with
the RULE OF LAW and more to do with the LAW OF THE JUNGLE. A case in
point is LANE DISCIPLINE. If you lack it, the bigger vehicles
routinely play a sort of RUSSIAN ROULETTE with other people's lives.
Their zigzaging left and right, without signals lights, just brings an
environment where all are defensive and size matters.
>
> > 'After about 10 minutes riding around in an SUV, the world is yours.
> > Just ran over a neighborhood block's worth of mailboxes? Small matter.
> > Your indestructible tank can handle it.'
>
> Go to the root of why people feel so insecure. Go to the root of the
> desire for ostentacious displays of material acquisition. You will
> find that capitalism is far more materialistic than even
> "materialistic" socialism.
>
> We do not live in a sane society.
Nor are we seeking for treatment. A paranoic and dillusional diagnosis
sounds right to me. Then we suffer from megalomania, but I don't know
if it's a disease or a mental disorder.
>
> > Good thing this guy is in recovery now... ;)
>
> The root of the problem is in something far more pervasive.
I think is about POWER and MONEY. But it may be related to human
nature as well.
>
> > 'It's not like all that money I'd spend on gas throughout the lifetime
> > of my ride would actually mean anything. Screw those in the leftist,
> > environment-loving media if they can't take a joke. If a man can't
> > consume blood-dripping raw beef, tear through the landscape in a car
> > fit only for military use and go home to watch Fox News, than he's got
> > nothing.
>
> Let's not over do it. For the suburbanite, fear and status (indirect
> self-acceptance) have combined to create a ket that preaches
> "freedom" in transportation. The SUV is a symbol of the so-called
> "freedom" the suburbanite rarely, if ever, experiences.
You are right about that. I think they experience the mentality of the
sheep in following the advice of commercials and in the herd mentality
when they do what everybody else is doing.
>
> > Right about the same time I was thinking about dropping out of MSU,
> > quitting The State News and driving to a red state to live wild and
> > free, my girlfriend shouted, "You almost ran over that kid, you yuppie
> > jerk." That broke the spell.
>
> > Who knew SUVs could send you on such a power trip? I never did.
>
> The irony of this is that an SUV is little better than any other
> vehicle in the hands of someone who does not know how to drive on snow
> and ice.
Well, they got another reason to move to Florida. ;)
>
> > Now after a long recovery, I'm back to listening to NPR and driving my
> > fuel-saving passenger car. Some day soon, in the near future, maybe
> > I'll buy a hybrid car, cuddle with fuzzy animals in the sunshine or
> > even hug a tree.
>
> > Then again, maybe SUVs aren't even a problem. If we leave them alone,
> > maybe this vehicular trend will go the way of the mini-van or station
> > wagon.'
>
> I am probably farther to the left than you are. But the all-wheel and
> 4X4 vehicles are unlikely to go away entirely. When Toyota produces
> the first fuel-efficient hybrid 4X4 the trend will be in that
> direction.
Toyota hybrids are a step in the right direction...while Toyota itself
takes two steps backward with its behemoths.
It wasn't my own opinion but the writer's words. I do agree that it
won't go away like another fad. It can only go away like the
dinosaurs, by abrupt extinction...or by putting them on a diet. Say
Toyota is making a behemoth, then don't buy Toyota and so on.
> Improved technology and new sources of energy can be our salvation.
> But it requires planning and political will.
If you ever find the political will let me know.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 23:56:23
From: Dan
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:1173982571.731703.101450@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> On 15, 12:27 pm, catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to
look
>> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many
commercials
>> > and too little real life.
Some.
>> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
>> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
>> hybrids built by Toyota.
That's why I drive a Mormon stationwagon--the Astro compact van. It's
hard to beat its combination of functionalities, gas mileage, camping,
moving, towing, and low cost of ownership. Even a pick-up truck isn't as
good.
Still, I bicycle when I don't need any of its functions. I don't want an
economy car, because it is really only would compete with the function
that my bicycle already has.
Yes, that's right. Even old geezers like me can still ride bicycles, if
we eat enough cholestorol and stay away from Statin and other causes of
heart attack that nevertheless pretend to prevent them thanks to lying
drug companies.
> I understand what you are saying, but the above statement could be
> used by the predators of the asphalt jungle to claim they need an SUV
> in an environment where others are driving SUVs. In fact, many claim
> that they got an SUV to be safe, where safety got little to do with
> the RULE OF LAW and more to do with the LAW OF THE JUNGLE. A case in
> point is LANE DISCIPLINE. If you lack it, the bigger vehicles
> routinely play a sort of RUSSIAN ROULETTE with other people's lives.
> Their zigzaging left and right, without signals lights, just brings an
> environment where all are defensive and size matters.
I've rarely noticed anything like that, but I would come to the opposite
conclusion. A little car would be better, because is farther away form
the big car in the neighboring lane.
>> > 'After about 10 minutes riding around in an SUV, the world is yours.
>> > Just ran over a neighborhood block's worth of mailboxes? Small
matter.
>> > Your indestructible tank can handle it.'
>>
>> Go to the root of why people feel so insecure. Go to the root of the
>> desire for ostentacious displays of material acquisition. You will
>> find that capitalism is far more materialistic than even
>> "materialistic" socialism.
>>
>> We do not live in a sane society.
The reason we don't have free kets is because of the so-called liberal
passing laws to make it impossible for mom and pop to make a living on of
their own.
The reason why we don't have free kets is because of the so-called
conservative passing laws that directly help big business at the expense
of mom and pop.
Since both parties are acting against mom and pop business, why don't
they shake hands and say, "Job well done. We've elimited mom and pop." So
much for honoring our parents and our own ability to make our own livings
on our own.
Now the corporations are the pirates of the nations, moving their wealth
offshore, and both parties only have themselves to blame.
Ron Paul for President!
> Nor are we seeking for treatment. A paranoic and dillusional diagnosis
> sounds right to me. Then we suffer from megalomania, but I don't know
> if it's a disease or a mental disorder.
It's called original sin. Look it up in your bible.
>> > Good thing this guy is in recovery now... ;)
>> The root of the problem is in something far more pervasive.
> I think is about POWER and MONEY. But it may be related to human
> nature as well.
No, it *is* human nature. Only the saints occasionally escape this nature
and only the help of their lord, the lord of lords, and their king, the
king of kings. Amen!?
>> > 'It's not like all that money I'd spend on gas throughout the
lifetime
>> > of my ride would actually mean anything. Screw those in the leftist,
>> > environment-loving media if they can't take a joke. If a man can't
>> > consume blood-dripping raw beef, tear through the landscape in a car
>> > fit only for military use and go home to watch Fox News, than he's
got
>> > nothing.
>>
>> Let's not over do it. For the suburbanite, fear and status (indirect
>> self-acceptance) have combined to create a ket that preaches
>> "freedom" in transportation. The SUV is a symbol of the so-called
>> "freedom" the suburbanite rarely, if ever, experiences.
> You are right about that. I think they experience the mentality of the
> sheep in following the advice of commercials and in the herd mentality
> when they do what everybody else is doing.
Not me. My Mormon stationwagon is form following function.
>> > Right about the same time I was thinking about dropping out of MSU,
>> > quitting The State News and driving to a red state to live wild and
>> > free, my girlfriend shouted, "You almost ran over that kid, you
yuppie
>> > jerk." That broke the spell.
>> > Who knew SUVs could send you on such a power trip? I never did.
>> The irony of this is that an SUV is little better than any other
>> vehicle in the hands of someone who does not know how to drive on snow
>> and ice.
My Astro gets stuck realy easy in snow and ice. Ski resort parking lots
are bad for it, but I'm prepared. I have some steel toothy tracks to lay
behind the tires. I never have problems on the roads though, unless they
are steeply sloped. Then lacking limited slip capability, one tire spins
and the other gets no power.
> Well, they got another reason to move to Florida. ;)
Not me. I like the ice. Even when the inexperienced hit my van with their
4x4s no problem. My van will just skate away with minor dents--also no
problem, because it is very old and not worth much. So much for your
prestige theory when my van is only worth a couple of grand.
>> > Now after a long recovery, I'm back to listening to NPR and driving
my
>> > fuel-saving passenger car. Some day soon, in the near future, maybe
>> > I'll buy a hybrid car, cuddle with fuzzy animals in the sunshine or
>> > even hug a tree.
>>
>> > Then again, maybe SUVs aren't even a problem. If we leave them
alone,
>> > maybe this vehicular trend will go the way of the mini-van or
station
>> > wagon.'
>> I am probably farther to the left than you are. But the all-wheel and
>> 4X4 vehicles are unlikely to go away entirely. When Toyota produces
>> the first fuel-efficient hybrid 4X4 the trend will be in that
>> direction.
> Toyota hybrids are a step in the right direction...while Toyota itself
> takes two steps backward with its behemoths.
I wouldn't want any of them. They are too expensive to maintain, get too
little gas mileage, and have too little space inside.
> won't go away like another fad. It can only go away like the
> dinosaurs, by abrupt extinction...or by putting them on a diet. Say
> Toyota is making a behemoth, then don't buy Toyota and so on.
I hope so. <play the tune from the Flintstones here, sorry to you folk
less than 40 who never heard of them >
>> Improved technology and new sources of energy can be our salvation.
>> But it requires planning and political will.
It requires less conspiracies from the satanic globalists who use energy
to buy up terra firma and make us their subjects. Now that they have all
the money, they want to ride the pale horse and kill us off with bio-
warfare, but the few who remain will be allowed to take the k of the
beast and ride bicycles, and they'll all worship the Earth and thank
Lucifer for saving them from the cars.
I don't like the car culture either, but for somewhat better reasons.
They are in the way of my bicycle.
> If you ever find the political will let me know.
Know! 8-D
> "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
> depends on his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair
Getting the satanic globalists to use their salary against them hurts
everyone more than you know.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Mar 2007 18:21:10
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173982571.731703.101450@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 15, 12:27 pm, catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to look
>> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many commercials
>> > and too little real life.
>>
>> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
>> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
>> hybrids built by Toyota.
>
> I understand what you are saying, but the above statement could be
> used by the predators of the asphalt jungle to claim they need an SUV
>
There you go again---"asphalt jungle...."
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 18:15:54
From: Pat
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>
> > When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
> > whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
>
> Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to life."
> or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to have
> gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and some
> other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually evaluate
> all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
Who said religion is a trivial thing?
> I hate politics.
> Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 02:06:53
From: Bill
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
Pat wrote:
> On Apr 2, 4:36 pm, Bill <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>
>>> When would we have a president whose race or sex are secondary, but
>>> whose major issue is that he/she rides a bicycle?
>> Probably never, because someone would come up and yell "Right to life."
>> or something else that is a hot button issue. Religion seems to have
>> gotten Bush in because of the Abortion, Stem cell research, and some
>> other really dumb issues. When will we have voters who actually evaluate
>> all the president's issues and not vote based on one trivial thing?
>
> Who said religion is a trivial thing?
>
>> I hate politics.
>> Bill Baka
>
>
I didn't say religion was trivial. Basing who is going to run or ruin
this country based on a single religious belief that the Vatican says
stem cell research is immoral only tells me that separation of church
and state as per the Constitution isn't happening. Other countries are
leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
Religion is NOT trivial.
Politics is NOT trivial, but should be agnostic.
Simple in concept but not in real life.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 09:43:45
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:06:53 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Other countries are
>leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
>president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
Now I'm confused. George Bush is Catholic? Low church Christian
fundamentalists (which technically Bush is not, but it is the group to
which he panders most) oppose stem cell research because of what the
Pope says?
If George Bush talks to the Pope, it is more to get a few more Roman
Catholic votes for Republican candidates at the next election, not to
talk to God. If Bush really believes as he suggests, he probably
doesn't feel quite ready to talk to God yet.
However, if the Pope has recently announced as a Methodist or Southern
Baptist, by all means disregard all of the above.
Now an additional political comment. As a Unitarian Universalist, I am
surrounded by people that blame everything GB does at least partly on
his faith and profession of being born again (although that was done
in a very, very fuzzy way). Yet these same people are real fans of
Jimmy Carter who, guess what, is pretty much from the same religious
background, but more so, with a born again profession that was much
more specific. Hmmm. Well, as one Unitarian once said, "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 09:19:50
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:0kn413hi2gfv67bkvkbtom6jset3tfpe7v@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:06:53 GMT, Bill <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Other countries are
>>leaving us in the dust in certain very important things due to a
>>president that thinks he can talk to God through the Pope.
>
> Now I'm confused. George Bush is Catholic? Low church Christian
> fundamentalists (which technically Bush is not, but it is the group to
> which he panders most) oppose stem cell research because of what the
> Pope says?
My understanding is that, among Protestants, the terms "High Church" and
"Low Church" are mainly used by Episcopalians (Church of England). And the
majority of Protestants don't really consider them true Protestants,
considering their history and practices. So it's probably not appropriate
terminology to refer to a Protestant as "Low Church" unless he's Anglican.
And I'm fairly confident Bush is not.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 12:05:40
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: When would we have a president
|
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:19:50 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
>
>My understanding is that, among Protestants, the terms "High Church" and
>"Low Church" are mainly used by Episcopalians (Church of England). And the
>majority of Protestants don't really consider them true Protestants,
>considering their history and practices. So it's probably not appropriate
>terminology to refer to a Protestant as "Low Church" unless he's Anglican.
>And I'm fairly confident Bush is not.
Maybe to Anglicans. The source is the same - the practice of a greater
level of liturgy and a stricter adherence to a profession of creed as
opposed to low church, which moved away from liturgy and more toward a
personal God that lessened the adherence to creed. The terminology has
a more specific meaning within the Anglican Church, but is extremely
common to refer to the various churches, based on whether their church
leans heavily toward liturgy and a liturgical process, with a strong
identification with a creed as opposed to those that have no or a
weaker liturgy and liturgical process (how the sevices proceed over
the course of a year or, often, a three year cycle) and adhere weakly
to a profession of creed or do not profess a creed at all.
Lutherans as an example are generally considered High Church
(especially after the LCA pretty much won the battle against the ALC
in forming the ELCA) and Baptists of all flavors Low Church. There is
no negative connotation, at least in general, in the Low versus High.
No doubt some High Church members think High is better than Low...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2007 21:39:37
From: Scott M. Kozel
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote:
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote
> > catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to look
> >> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many commercials
> >> > and too little real life.
> >>
> >> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
> >> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
> >> hybrids built by Toyota.
> >
> > I understand what you are saying, but the above statement could be
> > used by the predators of the asphalt jungle to claim they need an SUV
>
> There you go again---"asphalt jungle...."
He is probably an urban militant who lives in the concrete jungle.
|
| | | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 09:39:42
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: keep THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY going
|
On 19, 5:13 pm, "Jim Boyer" <james.bo...@motorola.com > wrote:
> costs. It should be a profit center instead of a break even or high loss
> activity. Let people who want to break laws, any laws, pay for the cost of
> enforcement AND the legal and penal systems. Instead, the
> enforcement/judicial/penal systems are turned into some kind of bleeding
> heart, slap on the wrist, tax wasting enterprise that does nothing to curb
> lawlessness.
>
> By trying to pay attention, I haven't had a ticket in 37 years since I was a
> stoopid 18 year-old and no at-fault accidents, though I've been clobbered in
> my car by idiots on their phone and running red lights.
And don't you think the authorities cracking down on the last two
issues would be needed? At least if there was any serious effort to
make our roads safer and not simply make it profitable, which I'm sure
it is, particularly for lawyers.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 00:23:09
From: nash
Subject: Re: keep THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY going
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174408782.164306.103060@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 19, 5:13 pm, "Jim Boyer" <james.bo...@motorola.com> wrote:
>
>> costs. It should be a profit center instead of a break even or high loss
>> activity. Let people who want to break laws, any laws, pay for the cost
>> of
>> enforcement AND the legal and penal systems. Instead, the
>> enforcement/judicial/penal systems are turned into some kind of bleeding
>> heart, slap on the wrist, tax wasting enterprise that does nothing to
>> curb
>> lawlessness.
>>
>> By trying to pay attention, I haven't had a ticket in 37 years since I
>> was a
>> stoopid 18 year-old and no at-fault accidents, though I've been clobbered
>> in
>> my car by idiots on their phone and running red lights.
>
> And don't you think the authorities cracking down on the last two
> issues would be needed? At least if there was any serious effort to
> make our roads safer and not simply make it profitable, which I'm sure
> it is, particularly for lawyers.
If the police do not do it I guess I will just have to help myself as the
truism goes.
I found that the police here no longer do anything if you report somebody
who is driving erratically or making you a target. Only if you can report
them within 5 min. or they actually hit you and then I do not think I would
actually have to phone the police myself hopefully. So, I am thinking I
have to be more assertive on the road otherwise they push you around like
the bullys they all are. Spoonfed bullies.
I really wish they would do their job though. My taxes go up every year
for the police force and they just get worse. I would rather put that money
to good use on fine wine than them.
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 13:41:20
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: keep THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY going
|
On 17, 10:31 am, "Gerard H. Pille" <g...@skynet.be > wrote:
> I find it hard to believe americans would behave any different from us europeans. On both sides
> you have people obeying and people disregarding traffic regulations. The only thing that keeps
> the latter in check is the traffic police, of which there aren't enough.
True. But I think here in the States is more about collecting money
than actually improving the situation. You know, they --the collection
industry-- only cite you for speed (but you go to a lawyer that drops
the points for a certain fee) or they cite you for DUI, which is a
REAL MONEY MAKER. So other factors (LANE DISCIPLINE or CELL-PHONE use)
are ignored, since they really keep THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY going (tow
truck, ambulance, more lawyers, medical, body shop, insurance, rental
car, new car, etc, etc).
Here's some novel way in which the collection industry works...
"A lot of the drivers complained about the method, calling it
entrapment"
'Leprechaun' Tickets Speeding Florida Drivers
Speeding and aggressive drivers in Orange County needed more than the
luck of the Irish to avoid a traffic citation on Thursday.
The "leprechaun" also held a sign reading, "Watch your speed or it
will cost you your pot of gold."
Motorcycle units stopped violators and issued the traffic citations
after being informed by the "leprechaun" via radio. Officials said
they issued about a ticket per minute.
A lot of the drivers complained about the method, calling it
entrapment
"I think that's just ridiculous," a deputy said. "The (leprechaun)
didn't force anybody to speed."
Orange County sheriff's deputies said the laser gun enabled the on-
duty "leprechaun" to clock a vehicle long before the driver would see
him.
In the past, Orange County sheriff's deputies have targeted speeding
motorists while dressed as an elf, the Grinch and a man waiting for a
bus.
"We do this sort of thing a lot on holidays," Orange County sheriff's
spokesman Jim Solomons said.
http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=35325
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 16:13:08
From: Jim Boyer
Subject: Re: keep THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY going
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174336880.865008.278050@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
Stuff clipped---
> True. But I think here in the States is more about collecting money
> than actually improving the situation. You know, they --the collection
> industry-- only cite you for speed (but you go to a lawyer that drops
> the points for a certain fee) or they cite you for DUI, which is a
> REAL MONEY MAKER. So other factors (LANE DISCIPLINE or CELL-PHONE use)
> are ignored, since they really keep THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY going (tow
> truck, ambulance, more lawyers, medical, body shop, insurance, rental
> car, new car, etc, etc).
>
> Here's some novel way in which the collection industry works...
>
> "A lot of the drivers complained about the method, calling it
> entrapment"
>
>
> 'Leprechaun' Tickets Speeding Florida Drivers
>
> Speeding and aggressive drivers in Orange County needed more than the
> luck of the Irish to avoid a traffic citation on Thursday.
>
> The "leprechaun" also held a sign reading, "Watch your speed or it
> will cost you your pot of gold."
>
> Motorcycle units stopped violators and issued the traffic citations
> after being informed by the "leprechaun" via radio. Officials said
> they issued about a ticket per minute.
>
> A lot of the drivers complained about the method, calling it
> entrapment
>
> "I think that's just ridiculous," a deputy said. "The (leprechaun)
> didn't force anybody to speed."
>
> Orange County sheriff's deputies said the laser gun enabled the on-
> duty "leprechaun" to clock a vehicle long before the driver would see
> him.
>
> In the past, Orange County sheriff's deputies have targeted speeding
> motorists while dressed as an elf, the Grinch and a man waiting for a
> bus.
>
> "We do this sort of thing a lot on holidays," Orange County sheriff's
> spokesman Jim Solomons said.
>
> http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=35325
I think this is a great idea. Drivers drive way too high above posted limits
and too aggressively. Whatever law enforcement can do to get drivers to back
off is fine with me. In fact, I think ticketing people who break the law
should generate revenue way above what our law enforcement/judicial system
costs. It should be a profit center instead of a break even or high loss
activity. Let people who want to break laws, any laws, pay for the cost of
enforcement AND the legal and penal systems. Instead, the
enforcement/judicial/penal systems are turned into some kind of bleeding
heart, slap on the wrist, tax wasting enterprise that does nothing to curb
lawlessness.
By trying to pay attention, I haven't had a ticket in 37 years since I was a
stoopid 18 year-old and no at-fault accidents, though I've been clobbered in
my car by idiots on their phone and running red lights.
jb
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 13:10:16
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: American drivers may be the best!
|
On 17, 3:08 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
>
> > >>What you do is add up the numbers and divide by the number of coutries.
>
> > >>That will give you 11.4
>
> > > No.
>
> > Yes.
>
> NO ! It damn well won't.
>
> If Europeans couldn't drive better with fewer accidents and fatalities than you
> damn blowhard cowboys we *should* bow our heads in shame.
>
> No need however !
If American drivers tend their children while driving, chat on the
phone, change their pants (Allstate commercial), watch DVDs, drink
coffee and eat McDonald's and ignore rules of the road they may be the
best drivers around. Or it's simply a mircacle that the carnage is not
worst.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 12:18:18
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: where's the political will?
|
"Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:45F9F559.1AFE9B26@comcast.net...
> "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote
>> > catbrie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> > And that's where the problem lies: the fake yuppies that want to
>> >> > look
>> >> > adventurous and tough. I think they are watching too many
>> >> > commercials
>> >> > and too little real life.
>> >>
>> >> A person's vehicular choices should reflect their driving environment.
>> >> I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. I love the new
>> >> hybrids built by Toyota.
>> >
>> > I understand what you are saying, but the above statement could be
>> > used by the predators of the asphalt jungle to claim they need an SUV
>>
>> There you go again---"asphalt jungle...."
>
> He is probably an urban militant who lives in the concrete jungle.
And who reads the New York Times too!!! By the way, I have a home
subscription to that paper, but its biases are horrible. Few know the Times
used eminent domain to seize a property for one-quarter of its real value so
it could increase its profits.
|
| |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 08:17:23
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
On 12, 8:14 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> nash wrote:
> > "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> >news:1173710168.736397.90040@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> On 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>> -
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:j%KHh.1189$yW.113@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >>>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >>>>> In article <db_Gh.5569$P47.5...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>>>> Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the
> >>>>>> soccer
> >>>>>> mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to
> >>>>>> run
> >>>>>> to the store for a pack of smokes, or some shit paper or other silly
> >>>>>> little errand. People are slow learners.
> >>>>> Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> $500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
> >>>>> for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
> >>>>> offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
> >>>>> college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.
> >>>> Yeah,
> >>>> And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
> >>>> from
> >>>> work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
> >>>> through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
> >>>> About negative $100K.
> >>> Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
> >>> the
> >>> reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
> >>> really
> >>> would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.
> >> Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
> >> because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
> >> here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
> >> their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
> >> on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
> >> can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
> >> the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
> >> $100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
> >> they are with 10 acres or more.
>
> >> I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
> >> city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.
>
> > We have not had those kind of prices for 40 years. You are lucky.
> > one million does not seem to go very far these days
> > forget about retiring too.
>
> Amen.
> Silicon valley fixer uppers start at about $750,000 and nice houses in
> good neighborhoods are well over a million. $40,000 to $80,000? Where?
> Not anywhere in California. When I retire it is not going to be in
> California for damn sure. Too expensive and they tax everything.
> Bill Baka
Just checked, out of curiosity. Not much on the ket right now,
only 7 houses. This is typical
http://www.house-now.com/public/search/advanced/sumy.asp?Listing_ID=13524
this is the next town over, one of only 2 props for sale
http://www.house-now.com/public/search/advanced/sumy.asp?Listing_ID=12585
In a nearby, more affluent town, this is typical
http://www.house-now.com/public/search/advanced/sumy.asp?Listing_ID=13852
t
hese are really upper end
http://www.house-now.com/public/search/advanced/sumy.asp?Listing_ID=13867
http://www.house-now.com/public/search/advanced/sumy.asp?Listing_ID=12582
This is what drives the economy:
http://www.senecaalleganycasino.com/about-news_newHotel.cfm
http://webcams.holidayvalley.com/
So when you-all decide to retire, stop commuting and find someplace
sane to live, come on up.
It's nice. There are bike trails around for those who want to ride
for recreation (or just use the roads). And there's no public
transportation to argue about. Just shuttles at the casino and ski
slope plus a couple of inter-city bus lines. Heck, we don't even have
taxis. So bring your car. Gas has been up lately, about $2.65 on the
Rez. And go back to the houses and check out what the taxes are per
year -- not terribly expensive.
See ya when ya retire. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:12:06
From: Mr.Cool
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
On 12, 6:44 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu > wrote:
> "Brian Huntley" <brian_hunt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173735032.076806.161090@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...> On 11, 9:31 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Even with mass transit to go to work, you
> >> have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use cars
> >> to
> >> go shopping and for inter-city travel.
>
> > I don't, as a rule. My family uses bikes and a wagon and buses and the
> > occasional cab for shopping. We inter-city by bus, train, and plane.
> > Sometime we *do* rent a car for a mid-distance trip, but not always.
>
> > But do I have to have a car of my own? Nope.
>
> But that is not the average pattern.
Well thats the point is'nt it? The average is what got us stuck in
this oils sucking hole in the first place.
Were trying to change the "average'' here remember? The agrage
american watches 6 hous of TV a day, to change that problem, you
would'nt change the surrondings of the TV watcher to make it better
would you? NO you change the habits of the human.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 10:12:00
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
Mr.Cool wrote:
> On 12, 6:44 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>> But that is not the average pattern.
>
>
> Well thats the point is'nt it? The average is what got us stuck in
> this oils sucking hole in the first place.
> Were trying to change the "average'' here remember? The agrage
> american watches 6 hous of TV a day, to change that problem, you
> would'nt change the surrondings of the TV watcher to make it better
> would you? NO you change the habits of the human.
>
Like training to become literate?
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 12:13:28
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
"Mr.Cool" <willbecool10@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173744726.079464.320010@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> On 12, 6:44 pm, "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote:
>> "Brian Huntley" <brian_hunt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1173735032.076806.161090@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...> On 11,
>> 9:31 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Even with mass transit to go to work, you
>> >> have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use
>> >> cars
>> >> to
>> >> go shopping and for inter-city travel.
>>
>> > I don't, as a rule. My family uses bikes and a wagon and buses and the
>> > occasional cab for shopping. We inter-city by bus, train, and plane.
>> > Sometime we *do* rent a car for a mid-distance trip, but not always.
>>
>> > But do I have to have a car of my own? Nope.
>>
>> But that is not the average pattern.
>
> Well thats the point is'nt it? The average is what got us stuck in
> this oils sucking hole in the first place.
> Were trying to change the "average'' here remember?
Well, you will not change fuel consumption with transit buses, which do
not save fuel.
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:30:32
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
On 11, 9:31 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> Even with mass transit to go to work, you
> have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use cars to
> go shopping and for inter-city travel.
I don't, as a rule. My family uses bikes and a wagon and buses and the
occasional cab for shopping. We inter-city by bus, train, and plane.
Sometime we *do* rent a car for a mid-distance trip, but not always.
But do I have to have a car of my own? Nope.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 23:44:57
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
"Brian Huntley" <brian_huntley@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173735032.076806.161090@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On 11, 9:31 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Even with mass transit to go to work, you
>> have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use cars
>> to
>> go shopping and for inter-city travel.
>
> I don't, as a rule. My family uses bikes and a wagon and buses and the
> occasional cab for shopping. We inter-city by bus, train, and plane.
> Sometime we *do* rent a car for a mid-distance trip, but not always.
>
> But do I have to have a car of my own? Nope.
>
>
But that is not the average pattern.
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 14:05:39
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On 12, 7:27 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On 8, 8:25 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
> >>> TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
> >>> BIG AND STUPID.
> >> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
> >> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
> >> trips. Too bad there isn't a law that says a cop can give you a
> >> pollution ticket if he spots you driving one block for a pack of smokes
> >> or some other silly excuse to drive the tank, er, SUV.
> >> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
> > They want to chase away the bikes not the SUVs. Thirsty behemoths
> > promote more the 19th century economy --and Chavez and terrorism, etc.
>
> Has anyone noticed that Bush has not made any moves toward taxing SUVs
> over econo cars? He's too interested in protecting his oil interests and
> playing war.
You always right on the money. Most people notice, but I think they
pretend not to notice. They don't support the war NOW, because the war
didn't result in CHEAP OIL.
The new big seller is the Nissan Titan pickup truck with a
> non-economy V-8. I got behind one yesterday, in a Lincoln, no less, and
> I couldn't see anything over or around the behemoth in front of me.
> If I was in a Geo-Metro that might make sense, but this damned truck was
> bigger than my friend's Lincoln Town car.
> Sheesh.
I wished they were more colorful --and honest-- with the names and
came up with something like the "King of the Jungle," the "Predator
Maximus," the "Napeleonic Dream" etc....
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:44:57
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 12, 7:27 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> On 8, 8:25 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
>>>>> TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
>>>>> BIG AND STUPID.
>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>>>> trips. Too bad there isn't a law that says a cop can give you a
>>>> pollution ticket if he spots you driving one block for a pack of smokes
>>>> or some other silly excuse to drive the tank, er, SUV.
>>>> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>>> They want to chase away the bikes not the SUVs. Thirsty behemoths
>>> promote more the 19th century economy --and Chavez and terrorism, etc.
>> Has anyone noticed that Bush has not made any moves toward taxing SUVs
>> over econo cars? He's too interested in protecting his oil interests and
>> playing war.
>
> You always right on the money. Most people notice, but I think they
> pretend not to notice. They don't support the war NOW, because the war
> didn't result in CHEAP OIL.
>
> The new big seller is the Nissan Titan pickup truck with a
>> non-economy V-8. I got behind one yesterday, in a Lincoln, no less, and
>> I couldn't see anything over or around the behemoth in front of me.
>> If I was in a Geo-Metro that might make sense, but this damned truck was
>> bigger than my friend's Lincoln Town car.
>> Sheesh.
>
> I wished they were more colorful --and honest-- with the names and
> came up with something like the "King of the Jungle," the "Predator
> Maximus," the "Napeleonic Dream" etc....
>
I think "Titan" pretty well sums up the big SOB. Nobody 'needs' a truck
that big. Most are four wheel drive and have never seen mud in their
lives, and probably never will. Wonder how long those 'status symbols'
will last at over $3.00/gallon for regular. Premium is suddenly up to
$3.29 around here, and that's at the discount stations. Go to a Chevron
or Shell and just hand them your wallet. The racks are going on my
shopping bike this week.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 07:36:08
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
On 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com > wrote:
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:j%KHh.1189$yW.113@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> > > In article <db_Gh.5569$P47.5...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the soccer
> > >> mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to run
> > >> to the store for a pack of smokes, or some shit paper or other silly
> > >> little errand. People are slow learners.
>
> > > Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on a
> > > $500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
> > > for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
> > > offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
> > > college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.
>
> > Yeah,
> > And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles from
> > work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
> > through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
> > About negative $100K.
>
> Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that the
> reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people really
> would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.
Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
$100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
they are with 10 acres or more.
I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:04:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1173710168.736397.90040@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>> -
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:j%KHh.1189$yW.113@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> > > In article <db_Gh.5569$P47.5...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>> > > Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > >> Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the
>> > >> soccer
>> > >> mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to
>> > >> run
>> > >> to the store for a pack of smokes, or some shit paper or other silly
>> > >> little errand. People are slow learners.
>>
>> > > Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on
>> > > a
>> > > $500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
>> > > for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
>> > > offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
>> > > college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.
>>
>> > Yeah,
>> > And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
>> > from
>> > work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
>> > through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
>> > About negative $100K.
>>
>> Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
>> the
>> reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
>> really
>> would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.
>
> Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
> because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
> here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
> their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
> on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
> can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
> the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
> $100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
> they are with 10 acres or more.
>
> I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
> city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.
We have not had those kind of prices for 40 years. You are lucky.
one million does not seem to go very far these days
forget about retiring too.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 01:14:38
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
nash wrote:
> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
> news:1173710168.736397.90040@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>> -
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:j%KHh.1189$yW.113@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>> In article <db_Gh.5569$P47.5...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>> Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the
>>>>>> soccer
>>>>>> mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to
>>>>>> run
>>>>>> to the store for a pack of smokes, or some shit paper or other silly
>>>>>> little errand. People are slow learners.
>>>>> Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on
>>>>> a
>>>>> $500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
>>>>> for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
>>>>> offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
>>>>> college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.
>>>> Yeah,
>>>> And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
>>>> from
>>>> work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
>>>> through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
>>>> About negative $100K.
>>> Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
>>> the
>>> reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
>>> really
>>> would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.
>> Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
>> because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
>> here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
>> their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
>> on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
>> can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
>> the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
>> $100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
>> they are with 10 acres or more.
>>
>> I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
>> city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.
>
> We have not had those kind of prices for 40 years. You are lucky.
> one million does not seem to go very far these days
> forget about retiring too.
>
>
Amen.
Silicon valley fixer uppers start at about $750,000 and nice houses in
good neighborhoods are well over a million. $40,000 to $80,000? Where?
Not anywhere in California. When I retire it is not going to be in
California for damn sure. Too expensive and they tax everything.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 12:14:08
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:2WmJh.3293$uo3.1806@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> nash wrote:
>> "Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>> news:1173710168.736397.90040@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>> -
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:j%KHh.1189$yW.113@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>>> In article <db_Gh.5569$P47.5...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>>> Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the
>>>>>>> soccer
>>>>>>> mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to
>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>> to the store for a pack of smokes, or some shit paper or other silly
>>>>>>> little errand. People are slow learners.
>>>>>> Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> $500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
>>>>>> for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
>>>>>> offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
>>>>>> college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.
>>>>> Yeah,
>>>>> And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles
>>>>> from
>>>>> work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
>>>>> through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
>>>>> About negative $100K.
>>>> Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that
>>>> the
>>>> reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people
>>>> really
>>>> would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.
>>> Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
>>> because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
>>> here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
>>> their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
>>> on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
>>> can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
>>> the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
>>> $100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
>>> they are with 10 acres or more.
>>>
>>> I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
>>> city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.
>>
>> We have not had those kind of prices for 40 years. You are lucky.
>> one million does not seem to go very far these days
>> forget about retiring too.
>>
>>
> Amen.
> Silicon valley fixer uppers start at about $750,000 and nice houses in
> good neighborhoods are well over a million. $40,000 to $80,000? Where?
> Not anywhere in California. When I retire it is not going to be in
> California for damn sure. Too expensive and they tax everything.
> Bill Baka
The environmental crowd wants the average person to suffer.
|
| |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 14:04:17
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Napoleon and Josefina want an SUV
|
On 9, 3:41 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Female_Domination_Book.jpg
>
> That would mean males needing loving domination and the girls being the
> mother of necessity.
I think that if males want to be like Napoleon, ladies want to be like
Josefina. And how else show their power --and stupidity-- than in an
SUV? But let the experts do a psychological profile of the femme
fatale...
"There are a number of commonly accepted reasons explaining why women
seem to be flocking to the SUV dealerships. Women above everything
else are looking for a safe vehicle. Recent reports have been
indicating that the bigger automobiles handle crashes better and also
due to their size SUVs provide a better driving view than other
smaller cars. The bigger the car the better. This size also allows a
person, no matter what their size to feel big and powerful."
http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~WS30/HKFinalProject.html
I guess only a Waterloo can wake them up to reality.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:27:05
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On 9, 3:16 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> > I'm already riding my bike in traffic with the T-shirt on (http://
> >www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235523967591425985) and I'm
> > still alive. Is that a good sign???
>
> Asking for a gang rape if your a female
I'm waiting for the females to rape me.
And while on the subject, why would it be that many women drive SUVs?
Would that be testosterone or the equivalent of this...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Female_Domination_Book.jpg
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:41:03
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173472025.514655.174950@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On 9, 3:16 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
>
>> > I'm already riding my bike in traffic with the T-shirt on (http://
>> >www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235523967591425985) and I'm
>> > still alive. Is that a good sign???
>>
>> Asking for a gang rape if your a female
>
> I'm waiting for the females to rape me.
>
> And while on the subject, why would it be that many women drive SUVs?
> Would that be testosterone or the equivalent of this...
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fa/Female_Domination_Book.jpg
>
That would mean males needing loving domination and the girls being the
mother of necessity.
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:11:04
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On 8, 8:25 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> > To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
> > TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
> > BIG AND STUPID.
>
> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
> trips. Too bad there isn't a law that says a cop can give you a
> pollution ticket if he spots you driving one block for a pack of smokes
> or some other silly excuse to drive the tank, er, SUV.
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
They want to chase away the bikes not the SUVs. Thirsty behemoths
promote more the 19th century economy --and Chavez and terrorism, etc.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:27:20
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 8, 8:25 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
>>> TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
>>> BIG AND STUPID.
>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>> trips. Too bad there isn't a law that says a cop can give you a
>> pollution ticket if he spots you driving one block for a pack of smokes
>> or some other silly excuse to drive the tank, er, SUV.
>> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> They want to chase away the bikes not the SUVs. Thirsty behemoths
> promote more the 19th century economy --and Chavez and terrorism, etc.
>
Has anyone noticed that Bush has not made any moves toward taxing SUVs
over econo cars? He's too interested in protecting his oil interests and
playing war. The new big seller is the Nissan Titan pickup truck with a
non-economy V-8. I got behind one yesterday, in a Lincoln, no less, and
I couldn't see anything over or around the behemoth in front of me.
If I was in a Geo-Metro that might make sense, but this damned truck was
bigger than my friend's Lincoln Town car.
Sheesh.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:05:25
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
--Also many places don't have showers at work, so what do you do then?
Need to look and address the BIG picture.--
Sure. We have to make America bicycle friendly in every way. I hope
the dinosaur cooperates. Or will he go into a rage about the small
competition?
I'm already riding my bike in traffic with the T-shirt on (http://
www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235523967591425985) and I'm
still alive. Is that a good sign???
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:16:00
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173470725.119958.87120@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> --Also many places don't have showers at work, so what do you do then?
> Need to look and address the BIG picture.--
>
> Sure. We have to make America bicycle friendly in every way. I hope
> the dinosaur cooperates. Or will he go into a rage about the small
> competition?
>
> I'm already riding my bike in traffic with the T-shirt on (http://
> www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235523967591425985) and I'm
> still alive. Is that a good sign???
Asking for a gang rape if your a female
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 11:51:52
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 8, 8:17 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> A/C as it is presently made is purely for the profit of the
> manufacturer. They can be made twice as efficient, since I worked out
> the numbers, and I am sure that most A/C design engineers know it too,
> but are not allowed to innovate that much. Right now they are just built
> to absolute minimum costs and just barely above the government's minimum
> legal SEER efficiency requirement.
> Bill Baka
There's always someone standing on the way of progress and evolution.
That's the HUNGRY DINOSAUR. In the following case, it's the building
owners...
"Nothing is stopping building owners from making investment in plants
and equipment except they don't want to do it," said Peter Fusaro,
founder of Global Change Associates, an environmental consultancy.
"There's just no people pushing it. Politicians make platitudes about
energy efficiency but who's going to make the investment?"
U.S. struggles to build green homes
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Change a light bulb and stop a war. Build ster
homes and keep the seas from rising.
These are the kinds of arguments U.S. environmentalists use to promote
their cause. Others say forget "save the planet," Americans respond
better to "save some money."
Regardless of the sales pitch, energy efficiency is an opportunity
that Americans shun, as less than 5 percent of the world's population
consumes almost 25 percent of global oil production.
While gas-guzzling vehicles draw the most criticism, homes and
businesses consume even more energy -- 40 percent of the U.S. total in
2005 versus 28 percent for transportation -- and provide the biggest
potential for savings.
The U.S. Green Building Council says structures built to its standards
can cut energy usage 20 to 80 percent using available technologies
such as compact fluorescent lighting and high-efficiency building
shells and water heating.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070309/us_nm/usa_environment_building_dc
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:33:41
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Change a light bulb and stop a war.
Some of this is trash because the so-called 'wasted heat' from a light bulb
goes toward heating the house. Thus the heat is not wasted at all. Nor is
the so-called 'waste' from standby electronics really waste if just heats
the house. However, in the summer it would be wasted.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:34:21
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Change a light bulb and stop a war.
>
> Some of this is trash because the so-called 'wasted heat' from a light bulb
> goes toward heating the house. Thus the heat is not wasted at all. Nor is
> the so-called 'waste' from standby electronics really waste if just heats
> the house. However, in the summer it would be wasted.
>
>
So use your compact fluorescents in the summer and the standard bulbs in
the winter. The only problem with this is that ceiling mounted lights
might just dump the heat into the attic where it gets wasted anyway.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 11:45:41
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: another T-shirt
|
On 8, 8:01 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> > No reason to hide behind tinted windows like SUV owners do...
>
> Look, SUV's are not selfish if you use them because of a need. I haul
> 4x8 lumber, 10 foot pipe segments AND have a drive in the mountains with a
> 30 degree slope which requires a 4x4 in wet weather. But I also have a baby
> Benz diesel which easily gets 35 mpg.
You got tinted windows? Then you got nothing to hide. Besides you use
it for work. They should be required a special commercial license for
real hauling --or else tax the fakes into smaller, ster cars.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 19:02:33
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 8, 8:17 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > On 8, 11:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> There are no free rides.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> > That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
> > and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
> > pollution.
>
> Quite true. But now that people are here, and Arizona (my sister), and
> New Mexico, Texas. etc., they aren't going to move just for the energy
> savings.
>
> If you want to do something real about pollution, move
>
> > somewhere that requires less energy to live.
>
> I plan to, if my wife will ever quit having to micro-manage her kids and
> mine.
>
> Even as it is,
>
> > electricity is notoriously inefficient.
>
> For heating it is terrible. Here in California it costs at least twice
> as much for an electric water heater as for a natural gas heater.
> Something about getting fuel to the electric plant, burning it, and then
> having to ship the electricity back to the consumer whose house the fuel
> passed in the first place.
>
> I heat my house from maybe
>
> > November to April (or so, depending on the year) and then use no power
> > for heating and cooling (other than cooking and hot water) for the
> > rest of the year.
>
> Speaking as an insomniac I can't sleep in a pool of sweat so I at least
> have to have the bedroom air conditioned. This is a lot cheaper than a
> central A/C system. In the winter the thermostat gets set to about 58
> and we use electric blankets.
If you like electric blankets, you'll LOVE the electric matress pads.
They're wonderful. The heat comes up from the bottom. Not too
expensive, but absolutely wonderful.
>
> No energy usage is the only free ride. I use 1 fan> upstairs if it really hot out. It isn't cars that create the energy
> > crisis and pollution, it is AC. Its impact on society has been huge.
>
> A/C as it is presently made is purely for the profit of the
> manufacturer. They can be made twice as efficient, since I worked out
> the numbers, and I am sure that most A/C design engineers know it too,
> but are not allowed to innovate that much. Right now they are just built
> to absolute minimum costs and just barely above the government's minimum
> legal SEER efficiency requirement.
> Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 03:57:03
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Pat wrote:
> If you like electric blankets, you'll LOVE the electric matress pads.
> They're wonderful. The heat comes up from the bottom. Not too
> expensive, but absolutely wonderful.
Hah,
A reason to shop for something new. I could be a sandwich between two
electric blankets and just set the heater to 48, not 58.
Getting up to take a leak might be a bummer though.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 12:45:00
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:jW4Ih.116$JZ3.36@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Pat wrote:
>> If you like electric blankets, you'll LOVE the electric matress pads.
>> They're wonderful. The heat comes up from the bottom. Not too
>> expensive, but absolutely wonderful.
>
> Hah,
> A reason to shop for something new. I could be a sandwich between two
> electric blankets and just set the heater to 48, not 58.
> Getting up to take a leak might be a bummer though.
> Bill Baka
I can think of two better blankets to be in the middle of. One would be
Heather Locklear and the other would be countless other Starlets that are
out there. But, hey, I can dream, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4445 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 00:44:26
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jW4Ih.116$JZ3.36@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>> Pat wrote:
>>> If you like electric blankets, you'll LOVE the electric matress pads.
>>> They're wonderful. The heat comes up from the bottom. Not too
>>> expensive, but absolutely wonderful.
>> Hah,
>> A reason to shop for something new. I could be a sandwich between two
>> electric blankets and just set the heater to 48, not 58.
>> Getting up to take a leak might be a bummer though.
>> Bill Baka
>
> I can think of two better blankets to be in the middle of. One would be
> Heather Locklear and the other would be countless other Starlets that are
> out there. But, hey, I can dream, right?
>
You're stealing my dream.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 13:03:13
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
The Tango microcar...
"1) Will it meet NTSC safety ratings?"
No, motorcycles are not required so (not even helmets where I live).
If you don't feel safe in a car, how about people riding a bike? Or
simply ride a bus.
"2) Will it meet insurance companies safety ratings. Crash tests?"
Same above.
"3) You won't get rid of the big lanes as your not gonna get rid of
Semi's and other trucks."
Safety would start with good driving practices and not based on size,
in which SUVs rule. LANE DISCIPLINE would be enforced and the CELL
PHONE would be punished as much as the bottle.
Drinking Coke is OK.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:02:15
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173387793.308327.139280@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The Tango microcar...
>
> "1) Will it meet NTSC safety ratings?"
>
> No, motorcycles are not required so (not even helmets where I live).
> If you don't feel safe in a car, how about people riding a bike? Or
> simply ride a bus.
>
> "2) Will it meet insurance companies safety ratings. Crash tests?"
>
> Same above.
>
> "3) You won't get rid of the big lanes as your not gonna get rid of
> Semi's and other trucks."
>
> Safety would start with good driving practices and not based on size,
> in which SUVs rule. LANE DISCIPLINE would be enforced and the CELL
> PHONE would be punished as much as the bottle.
>
> Drinking Coke is OK.
>
Mercedes for years would not put in cup holders because they said that
eating is a distraction. Correct.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:36:58
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: another T-shirt
|
Talking into account that most buses still pollute --if so much less--
here's another T-shirt that emphasizes that buses are unselfish. Yep,
the same way SUVs are an expression of selfishness and egomaniacal
behavior, buses are an expression of good social behavior.
No reason to hide behind tinted windows like SUV owners do...
http://www.zazzle.com/product/235865034222897517
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:01:18
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: another T-shirt
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173386217.897547.296260@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> Talking into account that most buses still pollute --if so much less--
> here's another T-shirt that emphasizes that buses are unselfish. Yep,
> the same way SUVs are an expression of selfishness and egomaniacal
> behavior, buses are an expression of good social behavior.
>
> No reason to hide behind tinted windows like SUV owners do...
>
Look, SUV's are not selfish if you use them because of a need. I haul
4x8 lumber, 10 foot pipe segments AND have a drive in the mountains with a
30 degree slope which requires a 4x4 in wet weather. But I also have a baby
Benz diesel which easily gets 35 mpg.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 20:09:28
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: another T-shirt
|
In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
> Look, SUV's are not selfish if you use them because of a need. I haul
> 4x8 lumber, 10 foot pipe segments AND have a drive in the mountains with a
> 30 degree slope which requires a 4x4 in wet weather. But I also have a baby
> Benz diesel which easily gets 35 mpg.
Good for you. Speaking from my own experience living in the Pacific
Northwet, you are a rare fish. Lots and lots of very expensive SUVs
that shine and gleam. Never having seen a gravel road. Never having
carried anything larger than a suitcase.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"I figure if I kill the first one, the word will get out."
- Charles Barkley on handling his 12-year-old daughter's future boyfriends.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 10:45:13
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 8, 12:40 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:1173373998.992497.86820@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 8, 11:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Pat wrote:
> >> > Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
> >> > most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
> >> > for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
> >> > That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
> >> > heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
> >> > but you're still burning something for electricity.
>
> >> > (side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
> >> > muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
>
> >> > Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
> >> > not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
> >> > use a huge amount of electricity.
>
> >> Try living in central California where 100's are common or Arkansas
> >> where 98 degrees and 98% humidity makes sweating in the shade a sport.
> >> Some places need A/C.
> >> For the record I owned a huge 5,000 square foot house in Minnesota north
> >> of the twin cities and it had 4 kinds of heat.
> >> 1. Propane forced air.
> >> 2. Electric baseboards.
> >> 3. Oil fired hot water radiators.
> >> 4. 2 wood burning stoves and a fireplace.
> >> 5. Even a fire place in the detached 1,000 square foot garage.
> >> When it got to 25 below zero I used wood as much as possible but needed
> >> to use the others when the wood ran out at about 3 in the morning.
> >> Except for the wood which just required me to chop it, the rest cost
> >> real money.
> >> There are no free rides.
> >> Bill Baka
>
> > That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
> > and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
> > pollution. If you want to do something real about pollution, move
> > somewhere that requires less energy to live. Even as it is,
> > electricity is notoriously inefficient. I heat my house from maybe
> > November to April (or so, depending on the year) and then use no power
> > for heating and cooling (other than cooking and hot water) for the
> > rest of the year. No energy usage is the only free ride. I use 1 fan
> > upstairs if it really hot out. It isn't cars that create the energy
> > crisis and pollution, it is AC. Its impact on society has been huge.
>
> So wouldn't you agree that farmland protection in warm areas (which often
> are well-suited to growing crops) would also serve the purpose of preventing
> the building of McMansions in those areas, which will have a legacy of
> increased power consumption for at least 50 years?
No, it won't prevent anything. It just means the they will build them
farther out from the city in another field or cut down another
hillside to build them. If someone is hell-bent on building a house,
they will build it somewhere.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:21:25
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On 6, 4:58 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> > Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
> > you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
> > expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
> > or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
> > might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
> > Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
> > on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
> > cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
> > busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
> > pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
> > want that, go with bio-diesel.
>
> REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
I almost suspected that, but then she went on to accept bicycles as a
good idea, which is clearly the first line of defense against Global
Warming. Our warmongering president spoke about alternative energy,
but "forgot" about the one that runs on banana and water: the bicycle.
If he only emphasized the bike, we would be far better off.
> > Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
> > practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
> > what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>
> > Sorry for the rant, but this
>
> Dude,
> Slow down.
> The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
> (soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have
> one. They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get
> into it, econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling
> trips. The little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night
> and never go over 30 miles in one day.
> The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
> bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
> nothing for the little econo box.
> The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>
That's a great idea above. Pity the SUVs are actually promoted in
every way.
To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
BIG AND STUPID.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:25:41
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 6, 4:58 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
>>> you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
>>> expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
>>> or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
>>> might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
>>> Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
>>> on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
>>> cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
>>> busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
>>> pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
>>> want that, go with bio-diesel.
>> REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
>
> I almost suspected that, but then she went on to accept bicycles as a
> good idea, which is clearly the first line of defense against Global
> Warming. Our warmongering president spoke about alternative energy,
> but "forgot" about the one that runs on banana and water: the bicycle.
> If he only emphasized the bike, we would be far better off.
Shit, man. He's only in it for the oil profits for the family business,
just like his father, who didn't even know how to finish a war. Oh,
yeah, he was a big shot pilot in WWII, and his contribution was to get
shot down in a perfectly good airplane.
>
>>> Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
>>> practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
>>> what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>>> Sorry for the rant, but this
>> Dude,
>> Slow down.
>> The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
>> (soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have
>> one. They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get
>> into it, econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling
>> trips. The little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night
>> and never go over 30 miles in one day.
>> The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
>> bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
>> nothing for the little econo box.
>> The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
>> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> That's a great idea above. Pity the SUVs are actually promoted in
> every way.
>
> To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
> TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
> BIG AND STUPID.
>
Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
trips. Too bad there isn't a law that says a cop can give you a
pollution ticket if he spots you driving one block for a pack of smokes
or some other silly excuse to drive the tank, er, SUV.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:32:22
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>trips.
The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
pretty silly.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 00:16:07
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>> trips.
>
> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
> pretty silly.
OK, scratch the damned SUV. If you commute 90 miles a day in an SUV
that's 450 miles a week at low mileage. I have commuted to Sacramento at
normal hours and at 4 in the morning and all the commuters seem to be
single passenger in an SUV or big pickup with very few economy cars.
That doesn't add up to me.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 19:45:06
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>>trips.
>
> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
> pretty silly.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices
> can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.
half a point each.
X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:08:19
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On Fri, 09 2007 19:45:06 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:
>half a point each.
>X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
Do the math. If you drive 20,000 miles per year and buy a 45 mpg
vehicle for $ 15,000 and use if for half of that mileage instead of,
say, a 12 mpg vehicle you already own (sort of the description of the
situation), you won't pay for the cost of the extra vehicle in six
years - if gas in the U.S. goes to $ 4.00 per gallon. That's ignoring
the cost of additional insurance and storage space.
At $ 3.00, it is more like 8 years.
And no, I'm not trying to justify my SUV - we own two Priuses and have
since before the last gasoline rise. Its just that your math won't
work.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:14:56
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:l2f3v25oioc5hpra81d8glb19t6appgnv7@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 2007 19:45:06 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>>half a point each.
>>X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>
> Do the math. If you drive 20,000 miles per year and buy a 45 mpg
> vehicle for $ 15,000 and use if for half of that mileage instead of,
> say, a 12 mpg vehicle you already own (sort of the description of the
> situation), you won't pay for the cost of the extra vehicle in six
> years - if gas in the U.S. goes to $ 4.00 per gallon. That's ignoring
> the cost of additional insurance and storage space.
>
> At $ 3.00, it is more like 8 years.
>
> And no, I'm not trying to justify my SUV - we own two Priuses and have
> since before the last gasoline rise. Its just that your math won't
> work.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
If you stopped driving an SUV to work which is more like 80% of travel it
does work.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:21:50
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On Fri, 09 2007 20:14:56 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:
>
>If you stopped driving an SUV to work which is more like 80% of travel it
>does work.
No, it moves the pay back to more than four years, not counting that
additional insurance et al. If you already have the SUV, no it won't
make the difference. And it assumes 12 mpg, which is a bit low for a
smaller SUV or a big six banger pick up truck, say your basic Ford
extended cab white commodity PU, with an overdrive. That would take
well over five years with gas at $ 3.00/gallon.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 20:38:41
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:68g3v29assq8tcpkopdipm7a0qkqmmdg9e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 2007 20:14:56 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>If you stopped driving an SUV to work which is more like 80% of travel it
>>does work.
>
> No, it moves the pay back to more than four years, not counting that
> additional insurance et al. If you already have the SUV, no it won't
> make the difference. And it assumes 12 mpg, which is a bit low for a
> smaller SUV or a big six banger pick up truck, say your basic Ford
> extended cab white commodity PU, with an overdrive. That would take
> well over five years with gas at $ 3.00/gallon.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
You forget, insurance on a pleasure vehicle or recreation which is what it
is, is alot less than for going to work. Maybe 1/5 lets say. They are
using the wrong tool for the job hahahahahah
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:49:17
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On Fri, 09 2007 20:38:41 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net >
wrote:
>You forget, insurance on a pleasure vehicle or recreation which is what it
>is, is alot less than for going to work. Maybe 1/5 lets say. They are
>using the wrong tool for the job hahahahahah
Christ, I said I wouldn't post, but I have to make this final comment,
because this is so typical of your posts. First, Bill B posits that
the vehicle would be used for short local trips. I do the math
assuming that there would be a lot of local trips. Then you say ' not
if they are used for 80% of the trips', such as going to work. Still
doesn't make it work, but fine, I don't expect you to be able to work
the math.
Then you make the above comment. This is like the 'brakes didn't
work', 'the brakes are adjusted well' stuff. I no longer expect you to
live in the our world - your math is different, your brakes work
differently, even the basic physics works differently - but you should
try to make that little world you do live in more consistent.
And this IS the last reply directed toward that little world of yours.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:27:23
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:5ph3v2hko0j00ss90c7skuh40nem1vllkv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 2007 20:38:41 GMT, "nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net>
> wrote:
>
>>You forget, insurance on a pleasure vehicle or recreation which is what it
>>is, is alot less than for going to work. Maybe 1/5 lets say. They are
>>using the wrong tool for the job hahahahahah
>
> Christ, I said I wouldn't post, but I have to make this final comment,
> because this is so typical of your posts. First, Bill B posits that
> the vehicle would be used for short local trips. I do the math
> assuming that there would be a lot of local trips. Then you say ' not
> if they are used for 80% of the trips', such as going to work. Still
> doesn't make it work, but fine, I don't expect you to be able to work
> the math.
>
> Then you make the above comment. This is like the 'brakes didn't
> work', 'the brakes are adjusted well' stuff. I no longer expect you to
> live in the our world - your math is different, your brakes work
> differently, even the basic physics works differently - but you should
> try to make that little world you do live in more consistent.
>
> And this IS the last reply directed toward that little world of yours.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
Right O,
But my way makes more sense for the environment which is the victim here not
anyone's ego. Everyone wins when the environment wins. You have been
Zenned
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 00:11:36
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
And this IS the last reply directed toward that little world of yours.
>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My goodness you are having a bad day.
Downhill also puts the rear wheel above the front in the first place.
Not everyone has abrupt stops going downhill only. There are other kinds.
Too bad you can not hear anyone but yourself.
Can"t teach anyone anything that knows it all is the rule I guess.
You have bad manners as well. bye
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 00:07:27
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
Then you make the above comment. This is like the 'brakes didn't
> work', 'the brakes are adjusted well' stuff. I no longer expect you
> to<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Just to put you straight I am not the one that started that. I was accused
of having very bad front brakes as a rebuttal. which I rebutted to.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:49:11
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no >,
nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>>gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>>>trips.
>>
>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>> pretty silly.
>
>half a point each.
>X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:20:30
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>>>> trips.
>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>> pretty silly.
>> half a point each.
>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>
> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:29:26
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
In article <q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>>>>> trips.
>>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>>> pretty silly.
>>> half a point each.
>>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>
>> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>
>Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
>miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
>from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
See, now you're changing the subject. I wouldn't consider a 45 mile
driver to be a "little trip".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 18:20:36
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>>> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
>>>>>> trips.
>>>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>>>> pretty silly.
>>>> half a point each.
>>>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>>> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>>> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>> Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
>> miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
>>from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>> Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
>
> See, now you're changing the subject. I wouldn't consider a 45 mile
> driver to be a "little trip".
It also is not a trip that justifies an SUV, that being my point, and
what many of the people who bought over priced McMansions do every day.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 21:17:54
From: di
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
>>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
>>>>> little
>>>>> trips.
>>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>>> pretty silly.
>>> half a point each.
>>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>
>> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>
> Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
> miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
> from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
> Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
> When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
> where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
> Bill Baka
It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
still are free to do that.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 12:04:29
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
> >> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> >>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
the
> >>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
> >>>>> little
> >>>>> trips.
> >>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
> >>>> pretty silly.
> >>> half a point each.
> >>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
> >> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
> >> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
> >
> > Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
> > miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
> > from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
> > Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
> > When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
> > where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
> > Bill Baka
>
> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
> still are free to do that.
>
>
Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its way.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:11:49
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
>> still are free to do that.
>
> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its way.
Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
demand hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
predicting the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer
however. I expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."
-- C. Durance, Computer Science 234
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 19:41:09
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:l7egc4-05h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
we
> >> still are free to do that.
> >
> > Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
way.
>
> Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
> demand hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
> predicting the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer
> however. I expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
>
When knowledgeable people talk about the end of _cheap_ oil, rightarts hear
"end of oil".
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 13:42:42
From: di
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:l7egc4-05h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>>> we
>>> still are free to do that.
>>
>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>> way.
>
> Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
> demand hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
> predicting the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer
> however. I expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
>
> --
> Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
> "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."
> -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234
Yes, but with the law of supply & demand, you still have the freedom to
choose what you drive, it you are willing to pay the price or suffer from a
reduced amount of fuel. What some of these people are talking about is
they will decide what you drive.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 19:42:34
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:HahJh.45168$oJ1.38288@newsfe18.lga...
>
>
> Yes, but with the law of supply & demand, you still have the freedom to
> choose what you drive, it you are willing to pay the price or suffer from
a
> reduced amount of fuel. What some of these people are talking about is
> they will decide what you drive.
>
The people who make the cars will decide that - and have been doing that for
decades.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:13:05
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:HahJh.45168$oJ1.38288@newsfe18.lga...
>
> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
> news:l7egc4-05h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>>>> we
>>>> still are free to do that.
>>>
>>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>>> way.
>>
>> Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
>> demand hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
>> predicting the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer
>> however. I expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
>>
>> --
>> Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
>> "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."
>> -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234
>
> Yes, but with the law of supply & demand, you still have the freedom to
> choose what you drive, it you are willing to pay the price or suffer from
> a reduced amount of fuel. What some of these people are talking about
> is they will decide what you drive.
>
That has happened before and will happen again. But new ways of extracting
oil are being found, so don't worry so much about that as the idea that we
must limit our carbon patterns. Now that will put us in single-wide
trailers at $1 million, just like NYC.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 06:04:51
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
What some of these people are talking about
> is they will decide what you drive.
>
??????????????
No, just raise your consciousness
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:33:31
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:l7egc4-05h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>>> we
>>> still are free to do that.
>>
>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>> way.
>
> Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
> demand hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
> predicting the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer
> however. I expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
>
> --
> Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
> "If that makes any sense to you, you have a big problem."
> -- C. Durance, Computer Science 234
If it is not happening why are you fighting to protect it? You do not make
any sense.
Just google nuclear car and see
Ford Nucleon 1968 (this one failed)
Atomic Auto
Maybe people will be too scared to drive because of them on the road haha
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 10:41:31
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
In rec.bicycles.misc nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
> news:l7egc4-05h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
>>>> still are free to do that.
>>>
>>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its way.
>>
>> Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and demand
>> hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet predicting
>> the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer however. I
>> expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
>
> If it is not happening why are you fighting to protect it?
I'm sorry, I can't even parse this sentence.
> You do not make any sense.
I've certainly been accused of that before. I do not believe that to be
the case this time. Your mileage may vary.
> Just google nuclear car and see Ford Nucleon 1968 (this one failed)
Well, I don't think you can call a concept car a 'failure'. All sorts
of things get made into concept cars that never see the light of day.
> Atomic Auto Maybe people will be too scared to drive because of them
> on the road haha
Well, I think it would be *technically* possible to build a nuclear car.
With modern pebblebed reactors it would be fairly safe even. However
*financially* you'd be better off running your car from just about any
other fuel source. It would truly be ludicrously expensive.
Socially, as you say, it would be a non-starter.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"When you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is best used
for chewing." -Slovotsky's Law # ?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 17:58:33
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu > wrote in message
news:bvfgc4-49h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
> In rec.bicycles.misc nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>> "Dane Buson" <dane@unseen.edu> wrote in message
>> news:l7egc4-05h.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org...
>>> In rec.bicycles.misc George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want,
>>>>> fortunately we
>>>>> still are free to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> Correction: They may not have that freedom if the laws of supply and
>>> demand
>>> hold true. Please don't mistake me for some wild eyed prophet
>>> predicting
>>> the end of oil. It does appear to be getting a touch scarcer however.
>>> I
>>> expect prices to trend up over the next few decades.
>>
>> If it is not happening why are you fighting to protect it?
>
> I'm sorry, I can't even parse this sentence.
>
>> You do not make any sense.
>
> I've certainly been accused of that before. I do not believe that to be
> the case this time. Your mileage may vary.
>
>> Just google nuclear car and see Ford Nucleon 1968 (this one failed)
>
> Well, I don't think you can call a concept car a 'failure'. All sorts
> of things get made into concept cars that never see the light of day.
>
>> Atomic Auto Maybe people will be too scared to drive because of them
>> on the road haha
>
> Well, I think it would be *technically* possible to build a nuclear car.
> With modern pebblebed reactors it would be fairly safe even. However
> *financially* you'd be better off running your car from just about any
> other fuel source. It would truly be ludicrously expensive.
>
> Socially, as you say, it would be a non-starter.
>
> --
> Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
> "When you know not whereof you speak, your mouth is best used
> for chewing." -Slovotsky's Law # ?
It was projected more to di's reply about oil not being scarce. Got lost in
the communication line.
Nucleon: Concept or not the first few words were that it was a failure for
two reasons.
Maybe it worked I did not find out. Failure because of expense as you say
would still be failure.
As for the oil war. If you had your own you would not be fighting to
protect it elsewhere and therefore your own resources must be extremely rare
and unsustainable already. The world must hold your hand while you grow up
I guess. The longer you take the more people die. Not your people though.
When is your next election?
You get me now?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 09:52:14
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:hlbJh.11867$tD2.2335@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>>
>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> >> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>> >> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>> >>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> >>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> >>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>> >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
> the
>> >>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
>> >>>>> little
>> >>>>> trips.
>> >>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>> >>>> pretty silly.
>> >>> half a point each.
>> >>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>> >> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>> >> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>> >
>> > Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV
>> > 45
>> > miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of
>> > them
>> > from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>> > Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
>> > When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
>> > where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
>> > Bill Baka
>>
>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>> we
>> still are free to do that.
>>
>>
>
> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
> way.
Considering that government accounting practices only count programs as
fiscally sound that drive up the amount of gas tax collected, I don't think
you need to worry any time soon that the government will take any steps at
all that might potentially reduce your right to consume as much as you like.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:11:16
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:FOdJh.18510$68.15079@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:hlbJh.11867$tD2.2335@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>>>
>>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> >> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>>> >> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>> >>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
>>> >>> message
>>> >>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> >>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
>> the
>>> >>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
>>> >>>>> little
>>> >>>>> trips.
>>> >>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>> >>>> pretty silly.
>>> >>> half a point each.
>>> >>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>> >>
>>> >> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>>> >> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>>> >> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>>> >
>>> > Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV
>>> > 45
>>> > miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of
>>> > them
>>> > from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>>> > Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
>>> > When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own
>>> > SUV
>>> > where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
>>> > Bill Baka
>>>
>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>>> we
>>> still are free to do that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>> way.
>
> Considering that government accounting practices only count programs as
> fiscally sound that drive up the amount of gas tax collected, I don't
> think you need to worry any time soon that the government will take any
> steps at all that might potentially reduce your right to consume as much
> as you like.
>
The Democratic party is the current hair shirt wearer in the USA so I
suspect that anything other than a Prius will be shortly outlawed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:07:37
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
On Mon, 12 2007 20:11:16 GMT, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu >
wrote:
>
>"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>news:FOdJh.18510$68.15079@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:hlbJh.11867$tD2.2335@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>> >> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>>>> >> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>>> >>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
>>>> >>> message
>>>> >>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> >>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>> >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
>>> the
>>>> >>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
>>>> >>>>> little
>>>> >>>>> trips.
>>>> >>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>>> >>>> pretty silly.
>>>> >>> half a point each.
>>>> >>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>>>> >> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>>>> >> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>>>> >
>>>> > Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV
>>>> > 45
>>>> > miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of
>>>> > them
>>>> > from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>>>> > Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
>>>> > When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own
>>>> > SUV
>>>> > where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
>>>> > Bill Baka
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>>>> we
>>>> still are free to do that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>>> way.
>>
>> Considering that government accounting practices only count programs as
>> fiscally sound that drive up the amount of gas tax collected, I don't
>> think you need to worry any time soon that the government will take any
>> steps at all that might potentially reduce your right to consume as much
>> as you like.
>>
>
> The Democratic party is the current hair shirt wearer in the USA so I
>suspect that anything other than a Prius will be shortly outlawed.
>
You honestly believe that the UAW would allow that to happen? Guess
which party the UAW supports.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:36:05
From: george conklin
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:fj4ev296bajud38too04g2dbkompbv11ve@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 2007 20:11:16 GMT, "george conklin" <george@nxu.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
>>news:FOdJh.18510$68.15079@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:hlbJh.11867$tD2.2335@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> > Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>> >> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>>>>> >> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in
>>>>> >>> message
>>>>> >>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> >>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>> >>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV
>>>>> >>>>> and
>>>> the
>>>>> >>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for
>>>>> >>>>> those
>>>>> >>>>> little
>>>>> >>>>> trips.
>>>>> >>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>>>> >>>> pretty silly.
>>>>> >>> half a point each.
>>>>> >>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the
>>>>> >> SUV
>>>>> >> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>>>>> >> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an
>>>>> > SUV
>>>>> > 45
>>>>> > miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of
>>>>> > them
>>>>> > from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>>>>> > Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
>>>>> > When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own
>>>>> > SUV
>>>>> > where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
>>>>> > Bill Baka
>>>>>
>>>>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want,
>>>>> fortunately
>>>>> we
>>>>> still are free to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its
>>>> way.
>>>
>>> Considering that government accounting practices only count programs as
>>> fiscally sound that drive up the amount of gas tax collected, I don't
>>> think you need to worry any time soon that the government will take any
>>> steps at all that might potentially reduce your right to consume as much
>>> as you like.
>>>
>>
>> The Democratic party is the current hair shirt wearer in the USA so I
>>suspect that anything other than a Prius will be shortly outlawed.
>>
> You honestly believe that the UAW would allow that to happen? Guess
> which party the UAW supports.
Yes, I do. Nothing is going to stop Al Gore. We will all be in cars
smaller than the Prius within 10 years.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 21:18:58
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"george conklin" <george@nxu.edu > wrote in message
news:9PEJh.9548$PL.2702@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Yes, I do. Nothing is going to stop Al Gore. We will all be in cars
> smaller than the Prius within 10 years.
>
because gas will be selling for $5/gal -- we're more than half-way there
now.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 02:39:02
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"di" <di9999@cox.net > wrote in message
news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:q11Jh.7831$P47.6865@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no>,
>>> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
>>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:DvOdncijiYDbK2zYnZ2dnUVZ_oannZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> In article <pI2Ih.1356$FG1.205@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>>>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
>>>>>> little
>>>>>> trips.
>>>>> The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
>>>>> pretty silly.
>>>> half a point each.
>>>> X plus gas = X minus gas + Y
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
>>> short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
>>> small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.
>>
>> Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
>> miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
>> from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
>> Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
>> When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
>> where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
>> Bill Baka
>
> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
> still are free to do that.
You can be the first to try out the nuclear cars that are coming because of
it.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 06:47:07
From: di
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:a33Jh.12415$DN.2432@pd7urf2no...
>
> "di" <di9999@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:lL2Jh.34294$oJ1.25108@newsfe18.lga...
>>
>>
>> It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
>> we still are free to do that.
> You can be the first to try out the nuclear cars that are coming because
> of it.
I don't know what you're even talking about but assume you're trying to
someway say when we run out of oil the only thing left will be nuclear.
Nice try, but get out of the fantasy world until when or if it might become
reality.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:51:40
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
>>> you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
>>> expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
>>> or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Not here, it is water flow, some where else it could be wind flow.
In Germany they make gas from pig manure.
We all do not hale from CA
Just a touch sensitive pal. Have another cafe latte X"?,,&&*ll@?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 18:03:46
From: nash
Subject: Re: THE REVOLUTION WILL
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173374485.080900.110710@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 6, 4:58 pm, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
>> > you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
>> > expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
>> > or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
>> > might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
>> > Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
>> > on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
>> > cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
>> > busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
>> > pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
>> > want that, go with bio-diesel.
>>
>> REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
>
> I almost suspected that, but then she went on to accept bicycles as a
> good idea, which is clearly the first line of defense against Global
> Warming. Our warmongering president spoke about alternative energy,
> but "forgot" about the one that runs on banana and water: the bicycle.
> If he only emphasized the bike, we would be far better off.
>
>> > Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
>> > practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
>> > what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>>
>> > Sorry for the rant, but this
>>
>> Dude,
>> Slow down.
>> The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
>> (soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have
>> one. They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get
>> into it, econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling
>> trips. The little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night
>> and never go over 30 miles in one day.
>> The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
>> bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
>> nothing for the little econo box.
>> The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
>> Bill Baka- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> That's a great idea above. Pity the SUVs are actually promoted in
> every way.
>
> To sum it up: THE REVOLUTION 1) WILL EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL
> TRANSPORTATION, 2) PROMOTE NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND 3) WILL PENALIZE THE
> BIG AND STUPID.
>
And penalize the stupid shouters first
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 09:13:19
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 8, 11:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net > wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
> > most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
> > for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
> > That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
> > heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
> > but you're still burning something for electricity.
>
> > (side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
> > muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
>
> > Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
> > not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
> > use a huge amount of electricity.
>
> Try living in central California where 100's are common or Arkansas
> where 98 degrees and 98% humidity makes sweating in the shade a sport.
> Some places need A/C.
> For the record I owned a huge 5,000 square foot house in Minnesota north
> of the twin cities and it had 4 kinds of heat.
> 1. Propane forced air.
> 2. Electric baseboards.
> 3. Oil fired hot water radiators.
> 4. 2 wood burning stoves and a fireplace.
> 5. Even a fire place in the detached 1,000 square foot garage.
> When it got to 25 below zero I used wood as much as possible but needed
> to use the others when the wood ran out at about 3 in the morning.
> Except for the wood which just required me to chop it, the rest cost
> real money.
> There are no free rides.
> Bill Baka
That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
pollution. If you want to do something real about pollution, move
somewhere that requires less energy to live. Even as it is,
electricity is notoriously inefficient. I heat my house from maybe
November to April (or so, depending on the year) and then use no power
for heating and cooling (other than cooking and hot water) for the
rest of the year. No energy usage is the only free ride. I use 1 fan
upstairs if it really hot out. It isn't cars that create the energy
crisis and pollution, it is AC. Its impact on society has been huge.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 01:17:47
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Pat wrote:
> On 8, 11:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> There are no free rides.
>> Bill Baka
>
> That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
> and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
> pollution.
Quite true. But now that people are here, and Arizona (my sister), and
New Mexico, Texas. etc., they aren't going to move just for the energy
savings.
If you want to do something real about pollution, move
> somewhere that requires less energy to live.
I plan to, if my wife will ever quit having to micro-manage her kids and
mine.
Even as it is,
> electricity is notoriously inefficient.
For heating it is terrible. Here in California it costs at least twice
as much for an electric water heater as for a natural gas heater.
Something about getting fuel to the electric plant, burning it, and then
having to ship the electricity back to the consumer whose house the fuel
passed in the first place.
I heat my house from maybe
> November to April (or so, depending on the year) and then use no power
> for heating and cooling (other than cooking and hot water) for the
> rest of the year.
Speaking as an insomniac I can't sleep in a pool of sweat so I at least
have to have the bedroom air conditioned. This is a lot cheaper than a
central A/C system. In the winter the thermostat gets set to about 58
and we use electric blankets.
No energy usage is the only free ride. I use 1 fan
> upstairs if it really hot out. It isn't cars that create the energy
> crisis and pollution, it is AC. Its impact on society has been huge.
>
A/C as it is presently made is purely for the profit of the
manufacturer. They can be made twice as efficient, since I worked out
the numbers, and I am sure that most A/C design engineers know it too,
but are not allowed to innovate that much. Right now they are just built
to absolute minimum costs and just barely above the government's minimum
legal SEER efficiency requirement.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:16:59
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Fri, 09 2007 01:17:47 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>> That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
>> and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
>> pollution.
>
>Quite true. But now that people are here, and Arizona (my sister), and
>New Mexico, Texas. etc., they aren't going to move just for the energy
>savings.
Give me a break - I lived in Texas, Arkansas, and Kansas when the only
places air conditioned were the banks, the movie houses and the 5 and
dimes. And the autos weren't air conditioned either.
People got along fine with far less energy draining house fans (as in,
really big exhaust fans that pulled air throughout the house, slamming
doors in the process) and the fans that pulled air over water. And the
houses were regional designs focused on cooling. People spent time on
porches with shade. They lived, they thrived, they did fine.
No, Little Rock, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Southern California did not
spring up in the 1960s. What was big just got bigger.
Air conditioning allowed people to spend all day inside with their
windows shut. That isn't the only way you can live.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 00:42:54
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 09 2007 01:17:47 GMT, Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
>>> and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
>>> pollution.
>> Quite true. But now that people are here, and Arizona (my sister), and
>> New Mexico, Texas. etc., they aren't going to move just for the energy
>> savings.
>
> Give me a break - I lived in Texas, Arkansas, and Kansas when the only
> places air conditioned were the banks, the movie houses and the 5 and
> dimes. And the autos weren't air conditioned either.
>
> People got along fine with far less energy draining house fans (as in,
> really big exhaust fans that pulled air throughout the house, slamming
> doors in the process) and the fans that pulled air over water. And the
> houses were regional designs focused on cooling. People spent time on
> porches with shade. They lived, they thrived, they did fine.
>
> No, Little Rock, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Southern California did not
> spring up in the 1960s. What was big just got bigger.
>
> Air conditioning allowed people to spend all day inside with their
> windows shut. That isn't the only way you can live.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
Now that you've made a statement that says you are even older than me,
so what, when I was a kid in Illinois we didn't have A/C either, house
or car.
When I first moved to California the house and 4-plex my parents bought
didn't have A/C either (1963) and nobody complained. Around 1972 my
mother gave me her 1956 Cadillac with super A/C and I got spoiled by the
sudden luxury. Of course San Jose never really got that hot, but when I
moved to the Sacramento area I found 100+ to be the norm during the
summer and both house and cars needed A/C.
Arizona and New Mexico would not have grown so much in the last 30 years
without A/C, regardless of the new interstate 40 going through them.
Progress, like it or not, happens.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:34:50
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:dof3v2p55s4m1a5uru56jddj1urvd5rqv4@4ax.com...
>
> People got along fine with far less energy draining house fans (as in,
> really big exhaust fans that pulled air throughout the house, slamming
> doors in the process) and the fans that pulled air over water.
You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a little
AC.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 16:50:45
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Fri, 09 2007 22:34:50 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
>ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a little
>AC.
They were talking about Texas and Arkansas, and besides, this is
simply a variant on normal fan cooling, not air conditioining in the
current sense. It very much DOES work in Kansas, it DOES work in
Texas, it DOES work in Arkansas. It may not work as well in Southern
California or Houston-Corpus Christi, but it will work better than a
normal fan system in making a house more comfortable and livable even
there.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 20:47:29
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:7lq8v215q4roqf9kqlad1imu0bgbtb0n27@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 2007 22:34:50 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
>>ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a
>>little
>>AC.
>
> They were talking about Texas and Arkansas, and besides, this is
> simply a variant on normal fan cooling, not air conditioining in the
> current sense. It very much DOES work in Kansas, it DOES work in
> Texas, it DOES work in Arkansas. It may not work as well in Southern
> California or Houston-Corpus Christi, but it will work better than a
> normal fan system in making a house more comfortable and livable even
> there.
Rule of thumb when working with an Evaporative Cooler. It will cool aprx 20
degrees from the real temp. Not the outside temp but what the temp inside
without it would be. That means that a metal building or Trailer House, it
will not work as well as a well insulated wooden structure building. In
fact, it the outside temp hits over 100, the inside of the building would be
115 degress, it's only going to lower the temp to around 95 degrees. The
same goes if the inside temp would have been 95, it can lower the temp to
75. And when the air saturates with moisture then the EC becomes worthless
and the temp will be much higher.
I am changing to AC for this summer because it might hit 107 and I don't
care to live at 97.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4649 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Mar 2007 00:57:53
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Daryl Hunt wrote:
> "Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org> wrote in message
> news:7lq8v215q4roqf9kqlad1imu0bgbtb0n27@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 09 2007 22:34:50 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
>>> ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a
>>> little
>>> AC.
>> They were talking about Texas and Arkansas, and besides, this is
>> simply a variant on normal fan cooling, not air conditioining in the
>> current sense. It very much DOES work in Kansas, it DOES work in
>> Texas, it DOES work in Arkansas. It may not work as well in Southern
>> California or Houston-Corpus Christi, but it will work better than a
>> normal fan system in making a house more comfortable and livable even
>> there.
>
> Rule of thumb when working with an Evaporative Cooler. It will cool aprx 20
> degrees from the real temp. Not the outside temp but what the temp inside
> without it would be. That means that a metal building or Trailer House, it
> will not work as well as a well insulated wooden structure building. In
> fact, it the outside temp hits over 100, the inside of the building would be
> 115 degress, it's only going to lower the temp to around 95 degrees. The
> same goes if the inside temp would have been 95, it can lower the temp to
> 75. And when the air saturates with moisture then the EC becomes worthless
> and the temp will be much higher.
>
> I am changing to AC for this summer because it might hit 107 and I don't
> care to live at 97.
>
>
That was sort of what I wanted to work on, a better cooler for the dry
regions. Dry air has very little heat transfer capacity but wet air has
a lot. That means in Arkansas an evaporative unit is a total waste but
an A/C has that 98% humidity air to work with. In Arizona where the
humidity is only about 15% on a 105 degree day an evaporative unit might
work well but the house gets all musty. A straight A/C unit has to run
the Freon through the outside coils at about 170 degrees to get any heat
transfer so the compressor works harder and the electric bill goes up.
I'm still spinning my wheels trying to figure out how to make and
hopefully patent a better A/C.
Get rich scheme #11,207.
Bill Baka
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 11:40:10
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1173373998.992497.86820@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 11:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>> > Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
>> > most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
>> > for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
>> > That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
>> > heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
>> > but you're still burning something for electricity.
>>
>> > (side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
>> > muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
>>
>> > Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
>> > not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
>> > use a huge amount of electricity.
>>
>> Try living in central California where 100's are common or Arkansas
>> where 98 degrees and 98% humidity makes sweating in the shade a sport.
>> Some places need A/C.
>> For the record I owned a huge 5,000 square foot house in Minnesota north
>> of the twin cities and it had 4 kinds of heat.
>> 1. Propane forced air.
>> 2. Electric baseboards.
>> 3. Oil fired hot water radiators.
>> 4. 2 wood burning stoves and a fireplace.
>> 5. Even a fire place in the detached 1,000 square foot garage.
>> When it got to 25 below zero I used wood as much as possible but needed
>> to use the others when the wood ran out at about 3 in the morning.
>> Except for the wood which just required me to chop it, the rest cost
>> real money.
>> There are no free rides.
>> Bill Baka
>
> That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
> and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
> pollution. If you want to do something real about pollution, move
> somewhere that requires less energy to live. Even as it is,
> electricity is notoriously inefficient. I heat my house from maybe
> November to April (or so, depending on the year) and then use no power
> for heating and cooling (other than cooking and hot water) for the
> rest of the year. No energy usage is the only free ride. I use 1 fan
> upstairs if it really hot out. It isn't cars that create the energy
> crisis and pollution, it is AC. Its impact on society has been huge.
So wouldn't you agree that farmland protection in warm areas (which often
are well-suited to growing crops) would also serve the purpose of preventing
the building of McMansions in those areas, which will have a legacy of
increased power consumption for at least 50 years?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 17:27:07
From: nash
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1173373998.992497.86820@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 8, 11:01 am, Bill Baka <b...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>> > Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
>> > most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
>> > for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
>> > That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
>> > heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
>> > but you're still burning something for electricity.
>>
>> > (side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
>> > muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
>>
>> > Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
>> > not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
>> > use a huge amount of electricity.
>>
>> Try living in central California where 100's are common or Arkansas
>> where 98 degrees and 98% humidity makes sweating in the shade a sport.
>> Some places need A/C.
>> For the record I owned a huge 5,000 square foot house in Minnesota north
>> of the twin cities and it had 4 kinds of heat.
>> 1. Propane forced air.
>> 2. Electric baseboards.
>> 3. Oil fired hot water radiators.
>> 4. 2 wood burning stoves and a fireplace.
>> 5. Even a fire place in the detached 1,000 square foot garage.
>> When it got to 25 below zero I used wood as much as possible but needed
>> to use the others when the wood ran out at about 3 in the morning.
>> Except for the wood which just required me to chop it, the rest cost
>> real money.
>> There are no free rides.
>> Bill Baka
>
> That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
> and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
> pollution. If you want to do something real about pollution, move
> somewhere that requires less energy to live. Even as it is,
> electricity is notoriously inefficient. I heat my house from maybe
> November to April (or so, depending on the year) and then use no power
> for heating and cooling (other than cooking and hot water) for the
> rest of the year. No energy usage is the only free ride. I use 1 fan
> upstairs if it really hot out. It isn't cars that create the energy
> crisis and pollution, it is AC. Its impact on society has been huge.
What do you mean pollution? Water vapor?
That is not decreasing the ozone and causing methane fires on top of
permafrost so the sea level rises 7 metres in decades not centuries.
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 07:43:19
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 6, 10:19 pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com > wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2ulHh.1542$uo3.829@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > Pat wrote:
> >> On 5, 7:26 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>
> >>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>>>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >>>>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
> >>> problem.
> >>>>>>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> >>>>>>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> >>>>>>>>> There are two versions of it...
> >>>>>>>>> bike:
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> >>>>>>>>> and bus:
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> >>>>>>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
> >>>>>>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> >>>>>>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
> >>>>>>> Heaven Help Bus
> >>>>>>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
> >>>>>>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future,
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> it works.
> >>>>>>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> >>>>>>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
> >>> cruise
> >>>>>>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> >>>>>>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> >>>>>>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years
> >>>>>>> ago
> >>>>>>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> >>>>>>> pipe: a trickle of water.
> >>>http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
> >>>>>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> >>>>>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> >>>>>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> >>>>>>> some other technologies out there.
> >>>>>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >>>>>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> >>>>>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
> >>>>>> hydro,
> >>>>>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> >>>>>> Bill Baka
> >>>>> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> >>>>> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
> >>>> Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
> >>> Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas. And of course a plug-in
> >>> hybrid
> >>> electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
>
> >> This whole Tango and electric car stuff is a load of BS. Period. It
> >> is all a bunch of tree-hugging hyporcrits who want to feel good about
> >> the environments without actually have to do anything about it or be
> >> inconvenienced. Period. There are solutions out there and they are
> >> fairly simple. But it isn't this crap.
>
> >> Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
> >> you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
> >> expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
> >> or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
> >> might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
> >> Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
> >> on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
> >> cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
> >> busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
> >> pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
> >> want that, go with bio-diesel.
>
> > REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
>
> >> Meanwhile, you little Tangos. They are nothing but publicity stunts.
> >> They are okay for backup transportation in a city but that's about
> >> it. But so is a motorcycle. Oh, but a motorcycle is "old technology"
> >> and doesn't have the allure of a slick Tango. Yeah, that's my point.
> >> If you people really gave a damn you be out riding motorcycles right
> >> now. Plus you can throw on a trailer for groceries if you want.
>
> >> Me? I don't ride public transportation and I drive a minivan. So
> >> there you go. But we don't have public transporation and if we did,
> >> it's be VERY wasteful because everyone around here has a car. And I
> >> drive a van to SAVE gasoline. I haul lots of kids to and froe
> >> practices and having a van that can carry 4 or 5 teens plus gear sure
> >> beats taking two trips. But when the weather is nice and I have to go
> >> somewhere, I ride one of my 3 motorcycles that range in gas milage
> >> from about 35 mpg to about 100 mpg. And the less expensive the bike I
> >> have, the better the gas mileage. Plus they take up very little
> >> parking. But you know what, riding the most fuel efficient vehicle on
> >> the road has NOTHING to do with gas mileage. They are just fun to
> >> ride. My smallest bike doesn't have much of a motor, but by 450 cc
> >> bike that is 25 years old still gets 70 mph and can out accelerate and
> >> outperform most cars on the road.
>
> >> So if you want to do something about energy and efficiency and
> >> pollution, go do it. But the whole "make it electric" arguement is
> >> pretty stupid because all you are doing is changing where the fuel is
> >> burned. And none of that stuff about "hydro" because all hydro is
> >> used to 100% capacity and any incrimental electricity is fossil. Oh,
> >> so you want more hydro. I'm fine with that. But I live in the
> >> country because I like it and I don't want any more valleys flooded so
> >> people in cities can go do stupid things. Go damn up your own
> >> rivers. Go put a damn across the Hudson. NYC has so many reseviours
> >> upstate they they have already devastated the Catskills. Pretty lakes
> >> you say? Yeah, but what about the people that used to live there who
> >> were flooded out of their homes. What about the rivers that are gone
> >> and the trout that aren't there? So maybe nuclear is a good thing.
> >> It might be. In 30 or 40 years when they get done cleaning up the
> >> nuclear reprocessing plant 30 miles from here, we'll discuss it.
> >> Actually I don't mind it, so if you want nuclear for Long Island or
> >> NYC, go put it on Long Island or NYC. Oh, that's right, they tried
> >> that and the people didnt want it. So if you want nuclear, why do YOU
> >> want the electricity but you want ME to deal with the consequences? I
> >> don't dump crap in your city so you keep your crap out of my rural
> >> area.
>
> >> As for bicycles? A great idea. Probably everyone in NYC and most
> >> other cities should have one or a scooter or small motorcyle. But
> >> they are not the answer for everyone.
>
> >> $6 gas. What about it. I'll go down on the Rez and buy it for $5.
> >> And as soon as the price of oil exceeds that of cooking oil, bio
> >> diesel sure will look sweat. Okay, the roads will smell like a
> >> chinese restaurant, but some people will like that.
>
> >> Fuel cells might use gas more efficently, but they are still using
> >> gas. So what's the big deal. Moving a car that some drives in a city
> >> from 30 mpg to 50 saves 13 gallon of fuel over 1000 miles. Moving a
> >> truck from 8 mpg to 12 mpg saves 42 gallons. Biodiesel would save 125
> >> gallons of oil.
>
> >> Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
> >> practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
> >> what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>
> >> Sorry for the rant, but this
>
> > Dude,
> > Slow down.
> > The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
> > (soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have one.
> > They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get into it,
> > econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling trips. The
> > little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night and never go
> > over 30 miles in one day.
> > The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
> > bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
> > nothing for the little econo box.
> > The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
> > Bill Baka
>
> Yes, and gas is heading back to over 3 bucks a gallon. Since the technology
> is already here for the electric vehicles (I ride one myself and haven't
> paid for fuel since Nov 2004) one would think that there might be somewhat
> or greater of an incentive to get that ol electric bike, car, MC or MiniVan
> going just by pluging it in. Our grid is well below needing help so we have
> more than we need. Shoot, chances are, we sell some of it to where you are.
> But I doubt if electric vehicles will bust many grids since the recharging
> takes less than a normal lightbulb. Mine takes about 2 to 5 amp per hour.
> That's many times less than a light bulb and about the same as a decent
> clock radio.
>
Sure you've bought lots and lots of fuel. You've just bought it
somewhere else and given that area your pollution.
I'm not sure how an electric MC would work. Seems like it would be
awkward. Besides, you would Harley get their sound?
We have more that we need, sometimes, but we don't during peak and
that's the problem. Interestingly, were I live, we have winter peak,
not summer peak, so we don't contribute to the problem as much as all
of the folk who depend on AC to live through the summer. Of course,
it's 5F right now, snowing, and we have 2.5 feet of snow on the
ground.)
Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
but you're still burning something for electricity.
(side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
use a huge amount of electricity.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
> It has removed 4131 spam emails to date.
> Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
> Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 15:59:44
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1173368599.705779.222980@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
> On 6, 10:19 pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote:
>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2ulHh.1542$uo3.829@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Pat wrote:
>> >> On 5, 7:26 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>>
>> >>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >>>>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> >>>>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954"
>> >>>>>>>> <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
>> >>> problem.
>> >>>>>>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>> >>>>>>>>> There are two versions of it...
>> >>>>>>>>> bike:
>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>> >>>>>>>>> and bus:
>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>> >>>>>>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>> >>>>>>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>> >>>>>>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>> >>>>>>> Heaven Help Bus
>> >>>>>>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>> >>>>>>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future,
>> >>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>> it works.
>> >>>>>>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>> >>>>>>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
>> >>> cruise
>> >>>>>>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown,
>> >>>>>>> picking
>> >>>>>>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells
>> >>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years
>> >>>>>>> ago
>> >>>>>>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the
>> >>>>>>> exhaust
>> >>>>>>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>> >>>http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>
>> >>>>>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>> >>>>>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>> >>>>>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen
>> >>>>>>> or
>> >>>>>>> some other technologies out there.
>> >>>>>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>> >>>>>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or
>> >>>>>> oil
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the
>> >>>>>> Hydrogen.
>> >>>>>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
>> >>>>>> hydro,
>> >>>>>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>> >>>>>> Bill Baka
>> >>>>> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even
>> >>>>> more
>> >>>>> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big
>> >>>>> time.
>> >>>> Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
>> >>> Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas. And of course a plug-in
>> >>> hybrid
>> >>> electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
>>
>> >> This whole Tango and electric car stuff is a load of BS. Period. It
>> >> is all a bunch of tree-hugging hyporcrits who want to feel good about
>> >> the environments without actually have to do anything about it or be
>> >> inconvenienced. Period. There are solutions out there and they are
>> >> fairly simple. But it isn't this crap.
>>
>> >> Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
>> >> you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
>> >> expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
>> >> or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
>> >> might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
>> >> Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
>> >> on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
>> >> cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
>> >> busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
>> >> pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
>> >> want that, go with bio-diesel.
>>
>> > REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
>>
>> >> Meanwhile, you little Tangos. They are nothing but publicity stunts.
>> >> They are okay for backup transportation in a city but that's about
>> >> it. But so is a motorcycle. Oh, but a motorcycle is "old technology"
>> >> and doesn't have the allure of a slick Tango. Yeah, that's my point.
>> >> If you people really gave a damn you be out riding motorcycles right
>> >> now. Plus you can throw on a trailer for groceries if you want.
>>
>> >> Me? I don't ride public transportation and I drive a minivan. So
>> >> there you go. But we don't have public transporation and if we did,
>> >> it's be VERY wasteful because everyone around here has a car. And I
>> >> drive a van to SAVE gasoline. I haul lots of kids to and froe
>> >> practices and having a van that can carry 4 or 5 teens plus gear sure
>> >> beats taking two trips. But when the weather is nice and I have to go
>> >> somewhere, I ride one of my 3 motorcycles that range in gas milage
>> >> from about 35 mpg to about 100 mpg. And the less expensive the bike I
>> >> have, the better the gas mileage. Plus they take up very little
>> >> parking. But you know what, riding the most fuel efficient vehicle on
>> >> the road has NOTHING to do with gas mileage. They are just fun to
>> >> ride. My smallest bike doesn't have much of a motor, but by 450 cc
>> >> bike that is 25 years old still gets 70 mph and can out accelerate and
>> >> outperform most cars on the road.
>>
>> >> So if you want to do something about energy and efficiency and
>> >> pollution, go do it. But the whole "make it electric" arguement is
>> >> pretty stupid because all you are doing is changing where the fuel is
>> >> burned. And none of that stuff about "hydro" because all hydro is
>> >> used to 100% capacity and any incrimental electricity is fossil. Oh,
>> >> so you want more hydro. I'm fine with that. But I live in the
>> >> country because I like it and I don't want any more valleys flooded so
>> >> people in cities can go do stupid things. Go damn up your own
>> >> rivers. Go put a damn across the Hudson. NYC has so many reseviours
>> >> upstate they they have already devastated the Catskills. Pretty lakes
>> >> you say? Yeah, but what about the people that used to live there who
>> >> were flooded out of their homes. What about the rivers that are gone
>> >> and the trout that aren't there? So maybe nuclear is a good thing.
>> >> It might be. In 30 or 40 years when they get done cleaning up the
>> >> nuclear reprocessing plant 30 miles from here, we'll discuss it.
>> >> Actually I don't mind it, so if you want nuclear for Long Island or
>> >> NYC, go put it on Long Island or NYC. Oh, that's right, they tried
>> >> that and the people didnt want it. So if you want nuclear, why do YOU
>> >> want the electricity but you want ME to deal with the consequences? I
>> >> don't dump crap in your city so you keep your crap out of my rural
>> >> area.
>>
>> >> As for bicycles? A great idea. Probably everyone in NYC and most
>> >> other cities should have one or a scooter or small motorcyle. But
>> >> they are not the answer for everyone.
>>
>> >> $6 gas. What about it. I'll go down on the Rez and buy it for $5.
>> >> And as soon as the price of oil exceeds that of cooking oil, bio
>> >> diesel sure will look sweat. Okay, the roads will smell like a
>> >> chinese restaurant, but some people will like that.
>>
>> >> Fuel cells might use gas more efficently, but they are still using
>> >> gas. So what's the big deal. Moving a car that some drives in a city
>> >> from 30 mpg to 50 saves 13 gallon of fuel over 1000 miles. Moving a
>> >> truck from 8 mpg to 12 mpg saves 42 gallons. Biodiesel would save 125
>> >> gallons of oil.
>>
>> >> Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
>> >> practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
>> >> what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>>
>> >> Sorry for the rant, but this
>>
>> > Dude,
>> > Slow down.
>> > The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
>> > (soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have
>> > one.
>> > They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get into
>> > it,
>> > econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling trips. The
>> > little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night and never
>> > go
>> > over 30 miles in one day.
>> > The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
>> > bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
>> > nothing for the little econo box.
>> > The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
>> > Bill Baka
>>
>> Yes, and gas is heading back to over 3 bucks a gallon. Since the
>> technology
>> is already here for the electric vehicles (I ride one myself and haven't
>> paid for fuel since Nov 2004) one would think that there might be
>> somewhat
>> or greater of an incentive to get that ol electric bike, car, MC or
>> MiniVan
>> going just by pluging it in. Our grid is well below needing help so we
>> have
>> more than we need. Shoot, chances are, we sell some of it to where you
>> are.
>> But I doubt if electric vehicles will bust many grids since the
>> recharging
>> takes less than a normal lightbulb. Mine takes about 2 to 5 amp per
>> hour.
>> That's many times less than a light bulb and about the same as a decent
>> clock radio.
>>
>
> Sure you've bought lots and lots of fuel. You've just bought it
> somewhere else and given that area your pollution.
>
> I'm not sure how an electric MC would work. Seems like it would be
> awkward. Besides, you would Harley get their sound?
>
> We have more that we need, sometimes, but we don't during peak and
> that's the problem. Interestingly, were I live, we have winter peak,
> not summer peak, so we don't contribute to the problem as much as all
> of the folk who depend on AC to live through the summer. Of course,
> it's 5F right now, snowing, and we have 2.5 feet of snow on the
> ground.)
>
> Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
> most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
> for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
> That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
> heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
> but you're still burning something for electricity.
>
> (side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
> muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
>
> Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
> not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
> use a huge amount of electricity.
Our electrics comes from hydroelectric power strictly. We export the excess
to other regions and export our coal to those cities in the east that use
the coal for electric power. Our air is much cleaner than most. But, even
so, it's starting to get a bit stale. Not from industry but from motor
vehicle emissions.
AS for getting rid of cars, we won't do that. It's stupid to even bring up.
But our around town running can be done with electrics that polute less than
even your Hydros (hydrogen). But, then again, Hydro around here means water
and we use Hydroelectrics to make our electricity with juice to burn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4371 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 16:01:02
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Pat wrote:
> Finally, electric that needs recharging like you have would work for
> most people around here. We have too many people traveling too far
> for it to work. Tomorrow I'm going about 7.5 hours for a trip.
> That's a long ways to go on a battery, esp. if you are using it to
> heat the car (10F and 70mph wind chill). It might work in some areas,
> but you're still burning something for electricity.
>
> (side note, we are 100% hydro, but not for environmental reasons. our
> muni electric buys it from Canada because it's cheap).
>
> Rather than getting rid of cars, that aren't used all that much. Why
> not just get rid of air conditioners. they are on all of the time and
> use a huge amount of electricity.
>
Try living in central California where 100's are common or Arkansas
where 98 degrees and 98% humidity makes sweating in the shade a sport.
Some places need A/C.
For the record I owned a huge 5,000 square foot house in Minnesota north
of the twin cities and it had 4 kinds of heat.
1. Propane forced air.
2. Electric baseboards.
3. Oil fired hot water radiators.
4. 2 wood burning stoves and a fireplace.
5. Even a fire place in the detached 1,000 square foot garage.
When it got to 25 below zero I used wood as much as possible but needed
to use the others when the wood ran out at about 3 in the morning.
Except for the wood which just required me to chop it, the rest cost
real money.
There are no free rides.
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 09:08:59
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 6, 7:54 pm, "Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com > wrote:
> -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:T2UGh.97842$_73.71678@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > Actually a SUV would use about the same fuel as a current transit bus.
>
> And carries a lot fewer passengers.
SUVs usually carry few people with big egos. The product of...
"We are all raised in an aggressive, competitive, egotistical society
[read SUVs], and these attitudes are not left behind. Cooperation can
be difficult [read buses].
Human beings are genetically designed to live in small groups where
group members are vitally significant to each other. Part of the
alienation and unhappiness in society is because family units are too
small [capitalist jungle], and other groupings too large [read
communist herd]."
http://www.mudsmith.net/moora/
This confirms what I've saying all along. Neither individualist jungle
nor herd are the best life for social monkeys. They would be inclined
to bikes and buses.
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 08:53:08
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Bicycles run on banana
|
"The Greasecar Vegetable Oil Conversion System is an auxiliary fuel
modification system that allows all diesel vehicles to run on straight
vegetable oil in any climate. Your Greasecar kit comes with everything
you need to convert your diesel vehicle to run on vegetable oil."
http://www.greasecar.com/index.cfm
Next thing they will make them run on banana. Bicycles run on banana
and water for a good while.
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 10:43:16
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 6, 12:26 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> "Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
>
> news:1173192680.059033.78720@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 3, 1:47 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> >> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> >> little furry animals are here to stay.
>
> >> There are two versions of it...
>
> >> bike:
>
> >>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>
> >> and bus:
>
> >>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>
> >> or the whole REVOLUTION...
>
> >>http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
> > It is -4F outside with a 20 mph wind and 3 feet of snow on the
> > ground. I need to run out, pick up my son from school and take him 20
> > miles to the orthodontist -- then get him back to school for the rest
> > of the day.
>
> > ... and you want me to ride a bike?????????????? You're out of your
> > minds.
>
> > As for the bus, I'd consider it but the school busses don't go that
> > far.
>
> > ... oh, you mean public transit. Yeah right. We don't even have
> > taxis in this area.
>
> > You know, those things aren't big on the Rez.
>
> Well, actually, people choose to live close to their needs like school,
> work, shopping, dentist. You chose not to.
But I am close to everything
The school is only 3 or 4 miles away (but the bus stop is just down
the street). And the grocery store is near it. Walt, "the mall",
the kid's dojo and the orthodontist are only about 20 miles away.
There are hospitals 20 miles to the east, 17 miles to the south, 45
miles to the west and about 30 miles to the north. The ski slope is
just 8 miles away so the kids can go skiing a couple of nights a
week. How much closer to "things" could anyone want to be?
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 10:25:25
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 6, 12:23 pm, "RicodJour" <ricodj...@worldemail.com > wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
> > It is -4F outside with a 20 mph wind and 3 feet of snow on the
> > ground. I need to run out, pick up my son from school and take him 20
> > miles to the orthodontist -- then get him back to school for the rest
> > of the day.
>
> > ... and you want me to ride a bike?????????????? You're out of your
> > minds.
>
> There's always an excuse with you, Pat. ;)
>
> > As for the bus, I'd consider it but the school busses don't go that
> > far.
>
> > ... oh, you mean public transit. Yeah right. We don't even have
> > taxis in this area.
>
> > You know, those things aren't big on the Rez.
>
> You're holding up progress by not living in an overcrowded area.
> Please move immediately. And bring some tax-free cigarettes.
>
> R
I might be driving to Long Island on Friday (seriously). I could
bring you some if you want. They've went up a bit. Now they are
about $11 or $12 per carton. One local show has a "sampler" of 2
packs of each generic brand so you can see which type you want to have
kill you. Or I could hook you up with a local company. You can't
swing a cat around here and not hit someone who is selling cigs. Our
post office has so many cigs moving through it I can't believe the
workers don't get a nicotine high just from breathing the air.
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:42:47
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 5, 7:26 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>
>
>
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > >> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
> problem.
> > >> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> > >> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> > >> >>> There are two versions of it...
> > >> >>> bike:
> > >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> > >> >>> and bus:
> > >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> > >> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>
> > >> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> > >> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>
> > >> > Heaven Help Bus
> > >> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>
> > >> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> > >> > it works.
>
> > >> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> > >> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
> cruise
> > >> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> > >> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> > >> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> > >> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> > >> > pipe: a trickle of water.
>
> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > >> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > >> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > >> > some other technologies out there.
>
> > >> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
> > >> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> > >> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> > >> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> > >> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > >> Bill Baka
>
> > > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>
> > Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
>
> Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas. And of course a plug-in hybrid
> electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
This whole Tango and electric car stuff is a load of BS. Period. It
is all a bunch of tree-hugging hyporcrits who want to feel good about
the environments without actually have to do anything about it or be
inconvenienced. Period. There are solutions out there and they are
fairly simple. But it isn't this crap.
Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
want that, go with bio-diesel.
Meanwhile, you little Tangos. They are nothing but publicity stunts.
They are okay for backup transportation in a city but that's about
it. But so is a motorcycle. Oh, but a motorcycle is "old technology"
and doesn't have the allure of a slick Tango. Yeah, that's my point.
If you people really gave a damn you be out riding motorcycles right
now. Plus you can throw on a trailer for groceries if you want.
Me? I don't ride public transportation and I drive a minivan. So
there you go. But we don't have public transporation and if we did,
it's be VERY wasteful because everyone around here has a car. And I
drive a van to SAVE gasoline. I haul lots of kids to and froe
practices and having a van that can carry 4 or 5 teens plus gear sure
beats taking two trips. But when the weather is nice and I have to go
somewhere, I ride one of my 3 motorcycles that range in gas milage
from about 35 mpg to about 100 mpg. And the less expensive the bike I
have, the better the gas mileage. Plus they take up very little
parking. But you know what, riding the most fuel efficient vehicle on
the road has NOTHING to do with gas mileage. They are just fun to
ride. My smallest bike doesn't have much of a motor, but by 450 cc
bike that is 25 years old still gets 70 mph and can out accelerate and
outperform most cars on the road.
So if you want to do something about energy and efficiency and
pollution, go do it. But the whole "make it electric" arguement is
pretty stupid because all you are doing is changing where the fuel is
burned. And none of that stuff about "hydro" because all hydro is
used to 100% capacity and any incrimental electricity is fossil. Oh,
so you want more hydro. I'm fine with that. But I live in the
country because I like it and I don't want any more valleys flooded so
people in cities can go do stupid things. Go damn up your own
rivers. Go put a damn across the Hudson. NYC has so many reseviours
upstate they they have already devastated the Catskills. Pretty lakes
you say? Yeah, but what about the people that used to live there who
were flooded out of their homes. What about the rivers that are gone
and the trout that aren't there? So maybe nuclear is a good thing.
It might be. In 30 or 40 years when they get done cleaning up the
nuclear reprocessing plant 30 miles from here, we'll discuss it.
Actually I don't mind it, so if you want nuclear for Long Island or
NYC, go put it on Long Island or NYC. Oh, that's right, they tried
that and the people didnt want it. So if you want nuclear, why do YOU
want the electricity but you want ME to deal with the consequences? I
don't dump crap in your city so you keep your crap out of my rural
area.
As for bicycles? A great idea. Probably everyone in NYC and most
other cities should have one or a scooter or small motorcyle. But
they are not the answer for everyone.
$6 gas. What about it. I'll go down on the Rez and buy it for $5.
And as soon as the price of oil exceeds that of cooking oil, bio
diesel sure will look sweat. Okay, the roads will smell like a
chinese restaurant, but some people will like that.
Fuel cells might use gas more efficently, but they are still using
gas. So what's the big deal. Moving a car that some drives in a city
from 30 mpg to 50 saves 13 gallon of fuel over 1000 miles. Moving a
truck from 8 mpg to 12 mpg saves 42 gallons. Biodiesel would save 125
gallons of oil.
Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
what you don't want to see out of your sight.
Sorry for the rant, but this
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 21:58:22
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Pat wrote:
> On 5, 7:26 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>>>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
>> problem.
>>>>>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>>>>>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>>>>>>> There are two versions of it...
>>>>>>>> bike:
>>>>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>>>>>>> and bus:
>>>>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>>>>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>>>>>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>>>>>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>>>>>> Heaven Help Bus
>>>>>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>>>>>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
>>>>>> it works.
>>>>>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>>>>>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
>> cruise
>>>>>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>>>>>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>>>>>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
>>>>>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>>>>>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>>>>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>>>>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>>>>>> some other technologies out there.
>>>>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>>>>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
>>>>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>>>>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
>>>>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>>>> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>>> Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
>> Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas. And of course a plug-in hybrid
>> electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
>
>
> This whole Tango and electric car stuff is a load of BS. Period. It
> is all a bunch of tree-hugging hyporcrits who want to feel good about
> the environments without actually have to do anything about it or be
> inconvenienced. Period. There are solutions out there and they are
> fairly simple. But it isn't this crap.
>
> Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
> you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
> expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
> or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
> might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
> Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
> on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
> cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
> busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
> pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
> want that, go with bio-diesel.
REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
>
> Meanwhile, you little Tangos. They are nothing but publicity stunts.
> They are okay for backup transportation in a city but that's about
> it. But so is a motorcycle. Oh, but a motorcycle is "old technology"
> and doesn't have the allure of a slick Tango. Yeah, that's my point.
> If you people really gave a damn you be out riding motorcycles right
> now. Plus you can throw on a trailer for groceries if you want.
>
> Me? I don't ride public transportation and I drive a minivan. So
> there you go. But we don't have public transporation and if we did,
> it's be VERY wasteful because everyone around here has a car. And I
> drive a van to SAVE gasoline. I haul lots of kids to and froe
> practices and having a van that can carry 4 or 5 teens plus gear sure
> beats taking two trips. But when the weather is nice and I have to go
> somewhere, I ride one of my 3 motorcycles that range in gas milage
> from about 35 mpg to about 100 mpg. And the less expensive the bike I
> have, the better the gas mileage. Plus they take up very little
> parking. But you know what, riding the most fuel efficient vehicle on
> the road has NOTHING to do with gas mileage. They are just fun to
> ride. My smallest bike doesn't have much of a motor, but by 450 cc
> bike that is 25 years old still gets 70 mph and can out accelerate and
> outperform most cars on the road.
>
> So if you want to do something about energy and efficiency and
> pollution, go do it. But the whole "make it electric" arguement is
> pretty stupid because all you are doing is changing where the fuel is
> burned. And none of that stuff about "hydro" because all hydro is
> used to 100% capacity and any incrimental electricity is fossil. Oh,
> so you want more hydro. I'm fine with that. But I live in the
> country because I like it and I don't want any more valleys flooded so
> people in cities can go do stupid things. Go damn up your own
> rivers. Go put a damn across the Hudson. NYC has so many reseviours
> upstate they they have already devastated the Catskills. Pretty lakes
> you say? Yeah, but what about the people that used to live there who
> were flooded out of their homes. What about the rivers that are gone
> and the trout that aren't there? So maybe nuclear is a good thing.
> It might be. In 30 or 40 years when they get done cleaning up the
> nuclear reprocessing plant 30 miles from here, we'll discuss it.
> Actually I don't mind it, so if you want nuclear for Long Island or
> NYC, go put it on Long Island or NYC. Oh, that's right, they tried
> that and the people didnt want it. So if you want nuclear, why do YOU
> want the electricity but you want ME to deal with the consequences? I
> don't dump crap in your city so you keep your crap out of my rural
> area.
>
> As for bicycles? A great idea. Probably everyone in NYC and most
> other cities should have one or a scooter or small motorcyle. But
> they are not the answer for everyone.
>
> $6 gas. What about it. I'll go down on the Rez and buy it for $5.
> And as soon as the price of oil exceeds that of cooking oil, bio
> diesel sure will look sweat. Okay, the roads will smell like a
> chinese restaurant, but some people will like that.
>
> Fuel cells might use gas more efficently, but they are still using
> gas. So what's the big deal. Moving a car that some drives in a city
> from 30 mpg to 50 saves 13 gallon of fuel over 1000 miles. Moving a
> truck from 8 mpg to 12 mpg saves 42 gallons. Biodiesel would save 125
> gallons of oil.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
> practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
> what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but this
>
Dude,
Slow down.
The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
(soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have
one. They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get
into it, econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling
trips. The little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night
and never go over 30 miles in one day.
The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
nothing for the little econo box.
The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 20:19:03
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:2ulHh.1542$uo3.829@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Pat wrote:
>> On 5, 7:26 am, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>>> "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>>>>>>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>>>>>>>> There are two versions of it...
>>>>>>>>> bike:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>>>>>>>> and bus:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>>>>>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>>>>>>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>>>>>>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>>>>>>> Heaven Help Bus
>>>>>>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>>>>>>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future,
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> it works.
>>>>>>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>>>>>>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
>>> cruise
>>>>>>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>>>>>>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>>>>>>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years
>>>>>>> ago
>>>>>>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>>>>>>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>>> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>>>>>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>>>>>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>>>>>>> some other technologies out there.
>>>>>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>>>>>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>>>>>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
>>>>>> hydro,
>>>>>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>>>>>> Bill Baka
>>>>> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>>>>> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>>>> Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
>>> Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas. And of course a plug-in
>>> hybrid
>>> electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
>>
>>
>> This whole Tango and electric car stuff is a load of BS. Period. It
>> is all a bunch of tree-hugging hyporcrits who want to feel good about
>> the environments without actually have to do anything about it or be
>> inconvenienced. Period. There are solutions out there and they are
>> fairly simple. But it isn't this crap.
>>
>> Electric cars? Guess what. Our electric grid is near capacity and
>> you want to plug your cars in? Great, you feel good about having an
>> expensive, stupid electric car while somebody is out building a coal
>> or oil plant to generate electricity and ship it to you. Okay, they
>> might be able to put out less pollution but it is still coal or oil.
>> Electricity doesn't just come out of you plug. It does, however, grow
>> on trees. Okay, no really, but fuel grows in fields. If you want to
>> cut your dependence on fossil fuels, switch to vegetable oil. You
>> busses and trucks and cars can run on that. It's simple, less
>> pollution, and easily stops the dependence on fossils. Okay, don't
>> want that, go with bio-diesel.
>
> REPUGLICAN ALERT!!!
>>
>> Meanwhile, you little Tangos. They are nothing but publicity stunts.
>> They are okay for backup transportation in a city but that's about
>> it. But so is a motorcycle. Oh, but a motorcycle is "old technology"
>> and doesn't have the allure of a slick Tango. Yeah, that's my point.
>> If you people really gave a damn you be out riding motorcycles right
>> now. Plus you can throw on a trailer for groceries if you want.
>>
>> Me? I don't ride public transportation and I drive a minivan. So
>> there you go. But we don't have public transporation and if we did,
>> it's be VERY wasteful because everyone around here has a car. And I
>> drive a van to SAVE gasoline. I haul lots of kids to and froe
>> practices and having a van that can carry 4 or 5 teens plus gear sure
>> beats taking two trips. But when the weather is nice and I have to go
>> somewhere, I ride one of my 3 motorcycles that range in gas milage
>> from about 35 mpg to about 100 mpg. And the less expensive the bike I
>> have, the better the gas mileage. Plus they take up very little
>> parking. But you know what, riding the most fuel efficient vehicle on
>> the road has NOTHING to do with gas mileage. They are just fun to
>> ride. My smallest bike doesn't have much of a motor, but by 450 cc
>> bike that is 25 years old still gets 70 mph and can out accelerate and
>> outperform most cars on the road.
>>
>> So if you want to do something about energy and efficiency and
>> pollution, go do it. But the whole "make it electric" arguement is
>> pretty stupid because all you are doing is changing where the fuel is
>> burned. And none of that stuff about "hydro" because all hydro is
>> used to 100% capacity and any incrimental electricity is fossil. Oh,
>> so you want more hydro. I'm fine with that. But I live in the
>> country because I like it and I don't want any more valleys flooded so
>> people in cities can go do stupid things. Go damn up your own
>> rivers. Go put a damn across the Hudson. NYC has so many reseviours
>> upstate they they have already devastated the Catskills. Pretty lakes
>> you say? Yeah, but what about the people that used to live there who
>> were flooded out of their homes. What about the rivers that are gone
>> and the trout that aren't there? So maybe nuclear is a good thing.
>> It might be. In 30 or 40 years when they get done cleaning up the
>> nuclear reprocessing plant 30 miles from here, we'll discuss it.
>> Actually I don't mind it, so if you want nuclear for Long Island or
>> NYC, go put it on Long Island or NYC. Oh, that's right, they tried
>> that and the people didnt want it. So if you want nuclear, why do YOU
>> want the electricity but you want ME to deal with the consequences? I
>> don't dump crap in your city so you keep your crap out of my rural
>> area.
>>
>> As for bicycles? A great idea. Probably everyone in NYC and most
>> other cities should have one or a scooter or small motorcyle. But
>> they are not the answer for everyone.
>>
>> $6 gas. What about it. I'll go down on the Rez and buy it for $5.
>> And as soon as the price of oil exceeds that of cooking oil, bio
>> diesel sure will look sweat. Okay, the roads will smell like a
>> chinese restaurant, but some people will like that.
>>
>> Fuel cells might use gas more efficently, but they are still using
>> gas. So what's the big deal. Moving a car that some drives in a city
>> from 30 mpg to 50 saves 13 gallon of fuel over 1000 miles. Moving a
>> truck from 8 mpg to 12 mpg saves 42 gallons. Biodiesel would save 125
>> gallons of oil.
>>
>> Sorry for the rant, but if you are going to save the world, be
>> practical and do thing that really make a difference, not just get
>> what you don't want to see out of your sight.
>>
>> Sorry for the rant, but this
>>
> Dude,
> Slow down.
> The idea for electric cars should be that if one just has to own an SUV
> (soccer mom or guy who needs the hauling space) then they should have one.
> They should also be required to buy a little tiny, barely can get into it,
> econo-box for running around town to do those non-hauling trips. The
> little one can be a total electric that you plug in at night and never go
> over 30 miles in one day.
> The insurance companies could help by making large vehicles pay a much
> bigger fee for comprehensive collision liability for the SUV and almost
> nothing for the little econo box.
> The bottom line is that if you are an ecology abuser you get to pay.
> Bill Baka
Yes, and gas is heading back to over 3 bucks a gallon. Since the technology
is already here for the electric vehicles (I ride one myself and haven't
paid for fuel since Nov 2004) one would think that there might be somewhat
or greater of an incentive to get that ol electric bike, car, MC or MiniVan
going just by pluging it in. Our grid is well below needing help so we have
more than we need. Shoot, chances are, we sell some of it to where you are.
But I doubt if electric vehicles will bust many grids since the recharging
takes less than a normal lightbulb. Mine takes about 2 to 5 amp per hour.
That's many times less than a light bulb and about the same as a decent
clock radio.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4131 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 11:07:55
From: Dane Buson
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In rec.bicycles.misc Daryl Hunt <dhunt@colwestnospam.com > wrote:
>
> But I doubt if electric vehicles will bust many grids since the recharging
> takes less than a normal lightbulb. Mine takes about 2 to 5 amp per hour.
> That's many times less than a light bulb and about the same as a decent
> clock radio.
Nitpick: What in the world are you using for lightbulbs? 2-5 amps at
110v means you're using 220-550 watt bulbs. Lighting up a lot of
stadiums are we? And of course, an additional thought is that I thought
a lot of the car chargers run on 220v, but 110v. Which would make for
440-1100 watts.
A better tack to take is that car charging could easily take place at
off-peak hours.
--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Protecting the children is a good way to get a lot of adults
who cant stand up for themselves" -J. Stecher
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:23:12
From: RicodJour
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Pat wrote:
>
> It is -4F outside with a 20 mph wind and 3 feet of snow on the
> ground. I need to run out, pick up my son from school and take him 20
> miles to the orthodontist -- then get him back to school for the rest
> of the day.
>
> ... and you want me to ride a bike?????????????? You're out of your
> minds.
There's always an excuse with you, Pat. ;)
> As for the bus, I'd consider it but the school busses don't go that
> far.
>
> ... oh, you mean public transit. Yeah right. We don't even have
> taxis in this area.
>
> You know, those things aren't big on the Rez.
You're holding up progress by not living in an overcrowded area.
Please move immediately. And bring some tax-free cigarettes.
R
|
| |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 06:51:20
From: Pat
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 3, 1:47 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> little furry animals are here to stay.
>
> There are two versions of it...
>
> bike:
>
> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>
> and bus:
>
> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>
> or the whole REVOLUTION...
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
It is -4F outside with a 20 mph wind and 3 feet of snow on the
ground. I need to run out, pick up my son from school and take him 20
miles to the orthodontist -- then get him back to school for the rest
of the day.
... and you want me to ride a bike?????????????? You're out of your
minds.
As for the bus, I'd consider it but the school busses don't go that
far.
... oh, you mean public transit. Yeah right. We don't even have
taxis in this area.
You know, those things aren't big on the Rez.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 17:26:49
From: nash
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us > wrote in message
news:1173192680.059033.78720@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 3, 1:47 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>
>> There are two versions of it...
>>
>> bike:
>>
>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>
>> and bus:
>>
>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>
>> or the whole REVOLUTION...
>>
>> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
>
>
> It is -4F outside with a 20 mph wind and 3 feet of snow on the
> ground. I need to run out, pick up my son from school and take him 20
> miles to the orthodontist -- then get him back to school for the rest
> of the day.
>
> ... and you want me to ride a bike?????????????? You're out of your
> minds.
>
> As for the bus, I'd consider it but the school busses don't go that
> far.
>
> ... oh, you mean public transit. Yeah right. We don't even have
> taxis in this area.
>
> You know, those things aren't big on the Rez.
Well, actually, people choose to live close to their needs like school,
work, shopping, dentist. You chose not to.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 11:16:10
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <tvhHh.1238775$1T2.970412@pd7urf2no >,
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
> Well, actually, people choose to live close to their needs like school,
> work, shopping, dentist. You chose not to.
It's also that urban planning in most cases makes automobiles the
preferred way to go long distances. There is pavement all over the
place but, as a result, no real transit corridors. It's a tragic case
of "water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink".
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 20:46:41
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 4, 8:36 pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com > wrote:
> You will notice that there was no mention of the obvious. If you use the
> electricity without converting it to anything it's clean (Hydrogen is not as
> clean) then you do get what you want.
It's bloody hard to bring a gallon of electricity home, though. You
generally have to convert it to something, even if it's some oddball
chemical soup of lead and sulpheric acid. That, or bring a LONG cord
with you.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 20:23:19
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Brian Huntley" <brian_huntley@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173156401.574935.21120@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 8:36 pm, "Daryl Hunt" <d...@colwestnospam.com> wrote:
>> You will notice that there was no mention of the obvious. If you use the
>> electricity without converting it to anything it's clean (Hydrogen is not
>> as
>> clean) then you do get what you want.
>
> It's bloody hard to bring a gallon of electricity home, though. You
> generally have to convert it to something, even if it's some oddball
> chemical soup of lead and sulpheric acid. That, or bring a LONG cord
> with you.
I don't need to bring a bucket of electricity home. I have it stockpiled in
any electrical outlet on my house, garage, office building (the owner of the
building is installing an outlet for my electric vehicle outside). In fact,
they are all over the place. Now, if you are in the outback then recharging
your bush buggy is the least of your worries, Mate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4131 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 20:32:08
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
On 5, 4:42 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173114309.794221.83810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > > > > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > > > > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > > > > some other technologies out there.
>
> > > > > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
> > > > Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> > > > make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> > > > It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> > > > or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > > > Bill Baka
>
> > > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> > Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
> > vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
>
> > Using Mass Transit
> > The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
> > the more global warming pollution it saves.
>
> Full cars would also do the same thing, but the laws are set up to
> discourage that and to encourage money-losing transit systems.
Care to point out any of those laws against having more than one
person in a car during rush hour? Or do you mean the widely ignored
"Don't pull into the bike lane and perform a Chinese Fire Drill
during rush hour" law?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 11:19:03
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"Brian Huntley" <brian_huntley@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173155528.376127.303010@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 5, 4:42 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:1173114309.794221.83810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually
we
> > > > > > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > > > > > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen
or
> > > > > > some other technologies out there.
> >
> > > > > > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >
> > > > > Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or
oil to
> > > > > make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the
Hydrogen.
> > > > > It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
hydro,
> > > > > or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > > > > Bill Baka
> >
> > > > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > > > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big
time.-
> > Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
> > > vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
> >
> > > Using Mass Transit
> > > The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
> > > the more global warming pollution it saves.
> >
> > Full cars would also do the same thing, but the laws are set up to
> > discourage that and to encourage money-losing transit systems.
>
> Care to point out any of those laws against having more than one
> person in a car during rush hour?
Even the DC SLUG system is only semi-legal. If you take someone in your
car for a fee, you become an illegal taxi. The poor ignore this rule in
rural areas, but the middle class does not want the loss of insurance, for
example.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:56:46
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:H6cHh.9800$tD2.4121@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Brian Huntley" <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1173155528.376127.303010@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> On 5, 4:42 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Full cars would also do the same thing, but the laws are set up to
>> > discourage that and to encourage money-losing transit systems.
>>
>> Care to point out any of those laws against having more than one
>> person in a car during rush hour?
>
> Even the DC SLUG system is only semi-legal. If you take someone in your
> car for a fee, you become an illegal taxi. The poor ignore this rule in
> rural areas, but the middle class does not want the loss of insurance, for
> example.
Laws are set up to discourage some things and encourage others. When the
laws discourage things that other people think are wise and good, such as a
level playing field for small business or a pedestrian-friendly environment,
you deny that the law does any such thing and claim that the existing
situation is the inevitable result of a free ket and what people want.
The truth is, I have never really heard anyone upset that they can't hire
out their car for a fee, or anyone upset that they can't hire their
neighbor's car, whereas many people are upset by the things that you see as
right and inevitable.
So just suck it up, George. Your little pipe dream of being able to found
"George's unlicensed taxi service" is never going to happen. And the vast
majority of people in this country resoundingly don't care.
-Amy
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 14:36:29
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
On 5, 5:29 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> :: I guess you can't argue with idiots, especially if they think they
> :: have enough money to waste on those things.
> :: Sigh.
> :: Bill Baka
>
> Is drinking alcohol bad for you?
Only if you drink and drive. Then it gets as dangerous as talking on
the phone.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 01:03:53
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an BUS not an SUV
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 5, 5:29 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> :: I guess you can't argue with idiots, especially if they think they
>> :: have enough money to waste on those things.
>> :: Sigh.
>> :: Bill Baka
>>
>> Is drinking alcohol bad for you?
>
> Only if you drink and drive. Then it gets as dangerous as talking on
> the phone.
>
Moral,
Only drink if it is offered to you, it is the good stuff, and you have a
good driver who doesn't drink (at least not more than one.).
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 14:32:37
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: go for a Tango!
|
On 5, 4:34 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173116893.810876.259480@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4, 10:57 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
> > > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > > > "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > > >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > > >> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > > >> >> wrote:
>
> > > >> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
> problem.
> > > >> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> > > >> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> > > >> >>> There are two versions of it...
> > > >> >>> bike:
> > > >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> > > >> >>> and bus:
> > > >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> > > >> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>
> > > >> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> > > >> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>
> > > >> > Heaven Help Bus
> > > >> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>
> > > >> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future,
> and
> > > >> > it works.
>
> > > >> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> > > >> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
> cruise
> > > >> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown,
> picking
> > > >> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> > > >> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years
> ago
> > > >> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> > > >> > pipe: a trickle of water.
>
> >http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
> > > >> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > > >> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > > >> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > > >> > some other technologies out there.
>
> > > >> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
> > > >> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil
> to
> > > >> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> > > >> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
> hydro,
> > > >> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > > >> Bill Baka
>
> > > > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > > > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>
> > > "Who killed the electric car" would be a good movie for this thread.
> > > I will never buy anything from GM. Wusses!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > The Tango is a fun option if you want to dance --or drive...
>
> > (I'd love one. Gotta ask Santa. Then buy life insurance, because I'd
> > be dead meat with it in the Darwinian roads where I live)
>
> > Tango
>
> > Doubling freeways. Quadrupling parking.
> > 0-60 mph in 4 seconds.
>
> > The Tango--unique in many ways--has the solution for some of the major
> > problems we have with automobiles today. Traffic has overcome the
> > current freeway system. There are too many 4-passenger cars using an
> > entire lane to transport a single person. There is also too much
> > pollution from gasoline vehicles.
>
> > Solution: Reduce traffic and pollution with the Tango,
>
> CU reports on the Car for Two. It is the worst car they ever tested.- Hide quoted text -
In a collision with what, a Hummer? I'm sure that if it hit another
Tango, it would have the same consequences as if two Hummers rammed
each other.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 10:23:29
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: not for the average wannabe Napoleon
|
I'm warning you, the Tango is not for the average wannabe Napoleon
driving an SUV out there. This is for the sleek and elegant, for the
st and classic, for the fun and passionate, for the caring and
unselfish. Status-seekers who want to stand out by driving a
polluting, dangerous oversized vehicle need not apply. Without further
ado...
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/ClooneyTango.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:48:15
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: go for a Tango!
|
On 4, 10:57 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net > wrote:
> "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> >> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> >> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> >> >>> There are two versions of it...
> >> >>> bike:
> >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> >> >>> and bus:
> >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> >> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>
> >> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> >> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>
> >> > Heaven Help Bus
> >> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>
> >> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> >> > it works.
>
> >> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> >> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
> >> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> >> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> >> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> >> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> >> > pipe: a trickle of water.
>
> >> >http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
> >> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> >> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> >> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> >> > some other technologies out there.
>
> >> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
> >> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> >> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> >> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> >> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> >> Bill Baka
>
> > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>
> "Who killed the electric car" would be a good movie for this thread.
> I will never buy anything from GM. Wusses!- Hide quoted text -
The Tango is a fun option if you want to dance --or drive...
(I'd love one. Gotta ask Santa. Then buy life insurance, because I'd
be dead meat with it in the Darwinian roads where I live)
Tango
Doubling freeways. Quadrupling parking.
0-60 mph in 4 seconds.
The Tango--unique in many ways--has the solution for some of the major
problems we have with automobiles today. Traffic has overcome the
current freeway system. There are too many 4-passenger cars using an
entire lane to transport a single person. There is also too much
pollution from gasoline vehicles.
Solution: Reduce traffic and pollution with the Tango, a car that fits
its use! This tandem two-seater can get you safely and comfortably to
work and back without wasted space or fuel. The Tango--being 6"
narrower than many motorcycles--takes less than half the space of the
average car on the freeway, thereby doubling the capacity of existing
freeway lanes. The Tango can fit in a future 6 foot lane easier than a
truck fits in a standard 12 foot lane. To fight pollution it is
available as an electric zero-emission vehicle.
http://www.commutercars.com/http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/t/r/troprent/ford.htm
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 21:34:31
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: go for a Tango!
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173116893.810876.259480@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 10:57 pm, "nash" <zwepytzkehil...@jetable.net> wrote:
> > "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "Bill Baka" <b...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> > >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > >> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> >
> > >> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
problem.
> > >> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> > >> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> > >> >>> There are two versions of it...
> > >> >>> bike:
> > >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> > >> >>> and bus:
> > >> >>>http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> > >> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
> >
> > >> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> > >> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
> >
> > >> > Heaven Help Bus
> > >> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
> >
> > >> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future,
and
> > >> > it works.
> >
> > >> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> > >> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
cruise
> > >> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown,
picking
> > >> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> > >> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years
ago
> > >> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> > >> > pipe: a trickle of water.
> >
> > >>
>http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
> >
> > >> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > >> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > >> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > >> > some other technologies out there.
> >
> > >> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >
> > >> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil
to
> > >> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> > >> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
hydro,
> > >> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > >> Bill Baka
> >
> > > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
> >
> > "Who killed the electric car" would be a good movie for this thread.
> > I will never buy anything from GM. Wusses!- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> The Tango is a fun option if you want to dance --or drive...
>
> (I'd love one. Gotta ask Santa. Then buy life insurance, because I'd
> be dead meat with it in the Darwinian roads where I live)
>
> Tango
>
> Doubling freeways. Quadrupling parking.
> 0-60 mph in 4 seconds.
>
> The Tango--unique in many ways--has the solution for some of the major
> problems we have with automobiles today. Traffic has overcome the
> current freeway system. There are too many 4-passenger cars using an
> entire lane to transport a single person. There is also too much
> pollution from gasoline vehicles.
>
> Solution: Reduce traffic and pollution with the Tango,
CU reports on the Car for Two. It is the worst car they ever tested.
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:28:19
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
The apple gives you a good picture of where we stand...
A brief history of consumption
http://www.ecotality.com/
And then I read about the ecobus (right here in the USof A)...
Arizona Showcases Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus
Arizona's first hydrogen powered bus is on the move in Arizona. The
ECObus is powered by a fuel cell that runs on pure hydrogen. ECOtality
has teamed up with Arizona Public Service (APS) company to bring the
ECObus to the state of Arizona with the objective of educating the
public on the use of renewable energies.
Beginning its excursion in Phoenix, Arizona, this zero-emissions bus
showcases the capabilities of hydrogen fuel cell technology.
Fuel Cell Technology is Good for the Environment
When hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, it produces electricity without
any harmful emissions. In fact, all that comes out of the tailpipe is
a small amount of water vapor. This is in sharp contrast to the
conventional vehicles we drive and ride-in today. Current conventional
vehicles are fueled by petroleum and powered by internal combustion
engines, contributing significantly to greenhouse gases and other
noxious substances that are emitted into our atmosphere daily.
As such, hydrogen is an ideal renewable energy source, answering
today's complex energy problems with its ability to power cars,
trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases.
Transportation of the Future
The bus uses three HyPM=AE 65 Fuel Cell Power Modules capable of
providing a total of 180 kilowatts (kW) of power. A 720-volt bank of
ultra-capacitors provides the remaining power needed to reach the peak
power requirements of 350 kW.
While the dominant power source comes from fuel cells, the bus'
efficient, hybrid-power construction represents an attractive solution
for future fuel cell powered buses. This is mainly because a hybrid
configuration enables the system to readily provide instantaneous full
power, with reduced capital cost and increased fuel efficiency. The
anticipated cost reduction is seen as a pathway that could speed up
the commercialization of fuel cell technology.
http://www.ecotality.com/ecobus/
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:22:37
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> pipe: a trickle of water.
Did you realize that water vapor is MORE of a greenhouse gas than CO2?
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 09:05:11
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
> > > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > > some other technologies out there.
>
> > > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
> > Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> > make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> > It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> > or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > Bill Baka
>
> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.- Hide quoted text -
Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
Using Mass Transit
The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
the more global warming pollution it saves. That's because a bus or
train releases more CO2 into the air than a car, but a bus or train
holds many, many more people and thus keeps all those cars off the
road.
A bus with just 7 passengers is more fuel efficient than the average
car. A full bus? Six times more efficient. And a full train? A
whopping 15 times more efficient.
http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/publictransportation.phphttp://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/publictransportation.php
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 21:42:47
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173114309.794221.83810@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > > > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > > > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > > > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > > > some other technologies out there.
> >
> > > > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >
> > > Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> > > make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> > > It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> > > or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> > > Bill Baka
> >
> > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.-
Hide quoted text -
>
> Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
> vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
>
> Using Mass Transit
> The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
> the more global warming pollution it saves.
Full cars would also do the same thing, but the laws are set up to
discourage that and to encourage money-losing transit systems.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 11:34:17
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>>>> some other technologies out there.
>>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
>>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
>>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>>> Bill Baka
>> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
> vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
>
> Using Mass Transit
> The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
> the more global warming pollution it saves. That's because a bus or
> train releases more CO2 into the air than a car, but a bus or train
> holds many, many more people and thus keeps all those cars off the
> road.
>
> A bus with just 7 passengers is more fuel efficient than the average
> car.
How many carpoolers do you see crammed with 7 people?
Reality check?
Bill Baka
A full bus? Six times more efficient. And a full train? A
> whopping 15 times more efficient.
>
> http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/publictransportation.phphttp://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/publictransportation.php
>
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 21:44:40
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:1h_Gh.5572$P47.452@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> >>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> >>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> >>>> some other technologies out there.
> >>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> >>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> >>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> >>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> >>> Bill Baka
> >> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> >> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.-
Hide quoted text -
> >
> > Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
> > vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
> >
> > Using Mass Transit
> > The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
> > the more global warming pollution it saves. That's because a bus or
> > train releases more CO2 into the air than a car, but a bus or train
> > holds many, many more people and thus keeps all those cars off the
> > road.
> >
> > A bus with just 7 passengers is more fuel efficient than the average
> > car.
>
> How many carpoolers do you see crammed with 7 people?
> Reality check?
> Bill Baka
>
These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver. If
both were full, in transit service they would again be equal. Long-distance
buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to hear
what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 03:15:14
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
On Mon, 05 2007 21:44:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1h_Gh.5572$P47.452@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> > On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>> >>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>> >>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>> >>>> some other technologies out there.
>> >>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>> >>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
>> >>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>> >>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
>> >>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>> >>> Bill Baka
>> >> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>> >> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.-
>Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
>> > vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
>> >
>> > Using Mass Transit
>> > The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use it,
>> > the more global warming pollution it saves. That's because a bus or
>> > train releases more CO2 into the air than a car, but a bus or train
>> > holds many, many more people and thus keeps all those cars off the
>> > road.
>> >
>> > A bus with just 7 passengers is more fuel efficient than the average
>> > car.
>>
>> How many carpoolers do you see crammed with 7 people?
>> Reality check?
>> Bill Baka
>>
>
>
> These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver. If
>both were full, in transit service they would again be equal. Long-distance
>buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to hear
>what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
>
Ironically, given other statistics, in the rush hour, the bus is
likely to be full over a good portion of the route while the car is
more likely to be single occupant only. In the off peak, the bus
normally is significantly less loaded while the car is more likely to
have more than one person in it.
Long distance buses may have greater fuel savings but that is at the
cost of narrow and cramped seating. As someone who took the Acadian
Lines bus on its journey that was almost twice as long as a car trip,
I can state that the comfort for someone over 6 feet tall is nowhere
near that of a standard Amfleet Corridor car. If Amfleet were to have
3 - 2 seating at a 32 inch seat spacing and no food service, a 5 car
train would probably have the same or slightly more seat miles per
gallon.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 11:17:32
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:kjmpu2pdsfp7hjrp2m75047h1lk4fqovgc@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 2007 21:44:40 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:1h_Gh.5572$P47.452@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> > On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> >> >>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> >> >>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen
or
> >> >>>> some other technologies out there.
> >> >>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >> >>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil
to
> >> >>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> >> >>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar,
hydro,
> >> >>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> >> >>> Bill Baka
> >> >> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> >> >> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big
time.-
> >Hide quoted text -
> >> >
> >> > Only true if less than 7 passengers ride it. And still it means fewer
> >> > vehicles out there to feed traffic jams...
> >> >
> >> > Using Mass Transit
> >> > The key to mass transit is the word "mass". The more of us who use
it,
> >> > the more global warming pollution it saves. That's because a bus or
> >> > train releases more CO2 into the air than a car, but a bus or train
> >> > holds many, many more people and thus keeps all those cars off the
> >> > road.
> >> >
> >> > A bus with just 7 passengers is more fuel efficient than the average
> >> > car.
> >>
> >> How many carpoolers do you see crammed with 7 people?
> >> Reality check?
> >> Bill Baka
> >>
> >
> >
> > These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver.
If
> >both were full, in transit service they would again be equal.
Long-distance
> >buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to hear
> >what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
> >
> Ironically, given other statistics, in the rush hour, the bus is
> likely to be full over a good portion of the route while the car is
> more likely to be single occupant only. In the off peak, the bus
> normally is significantly less loaded while the car is more likely to
> have more than one person in it.
>
But the bus then has to go back empty for the next load. The car stays
put. This is the source of much fuel savings. And of course off-hour
service, needed for transit, is the source of a lot of wasted fuel too.
> Long distance buses may have greater fuel savings but that is at the
> cost of narrow and cramped seating. As someone who took the Acadian
> Lines bus on its journey that was almost twice as long as a car trip,
> I can state that the comfort for someone over 6 feet tall is nowhere
> near that of a standard Amfleet Corridor car. If Amfleet were to have
> 3 - 2 seating at a 32 inch seat spacing and no food service, a 5 car
> train would probably have the same or slightly more seat miles per
> gallon.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 17:46:55
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:cb0Hh.9621$tD2.7195@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver.
> If
> both were full, in transit service they would again be equal.
> Long-distance
> buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to hear
> what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
I have never noticed busses being dirtier than trains.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 11:16:17
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:WU1Hh.3932$Dw2.592@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cb0Hh.9621$tD2.7195@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver.
> > If
> > both were full, in transit service they would again be equal.
> > Long-distance
> > buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to
hear
> > what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
>
> I have never noticed busses being dirtier than trains.
>
>
According to the EPA, current trains are vastly polluting, much more so than
buses.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 18:29:07
From: nash
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:54cHh.9797$tD2.9455@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:WU1Hh.3932$Dw2.592@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:cb0Hh.9621$tD2.7195@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver.
>> > If
>> > both were full, in transit service they would again be equal.
>> > Long-distance
>> > buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to
> hear
>> > what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
>>
>> I have never noticed busses being dirtier than trains.
>>
>>
> According to the EPA, current trains are vastly polluting, much more so
> than
> buses.
>
What are they running on coal? I thought they were electric.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 21:54:55
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:TvDHh.1261631$R63.1039809@pd7urf1no...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:54cHh.9797$tD2.9455@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> > news:WU1Hh.3932$Dw2.592@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >>
> >> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cb0Hh.9621$tD2.7195@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> > These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the
driver.
> >> > If
> >> > both were full, in transit service they would again be equal.
> >> > Long-distance
> >> > buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to
> > hear
> >> > what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
> >>
> >> I have never noticed busses being dirtier than trains.
> >>
> >>
> > According to the EPA, current trains are vastly polluting, much more so
> > than
> > buses.
> >
> What are they running on coal? I thought they were electric.
>
>
\
Diesel engines currently in use by trains are horribly polluting.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 09:48:29
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: fewer vehicles out there to feed traffic jams
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:54cHh.9797$tD2.9455@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:WU1Hh.3932$Dw2.592@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:cb0Hh.9621$tD2.7195@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > These fake comparison compare a full bus with car with only the driver.
>> > If
>> > both were full, in transit service they would again be equal.
>> > Long-distance
>> > buses, NEVER trains, yield the biggest savings. But no one wants to
> hear
>> > what works. I know there are many train foamers, no bus foamers.
>>
>> I have never noticed busses being dirtier than trains.
>>
>>
> According to the EPA, current trains are vastly polluting, much more so
> than
> buses.
What does that have to do with how often they get washed?
|
| |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 05:22:38
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 4, 2:55 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com >
wrote:
> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> > > And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> > > little furry animals are here to stay.
>
> > > There are two versions of it...
>
> > > bike:
>
> > >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>
> > > and bus:
>
> > >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>
> > OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>
> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>
> Heaven Help Bus
> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>
> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> it works.
>
> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> pipe: a trickle of water.
>
> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> some other technologies out there.
>
> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
How do they make the hydrogen? Do ya suppose their is some energy use
to make that happen? And is the energy gained higher or lower than the
energy expense to get the hydrogen?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 14:08:02
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 5 2007 05:22:38 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<peter@vecchios.com > wrote:
>On 4, 2:55 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>> > > And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>> > > little furry animals are here to stay.
>>
>> > > There are two versions of it...
>>
>> > > bike:
>>
>> > >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>
>> > > and bus:
>>
>> > >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>
>> > OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>>
>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>>
>> Heaven Help Bus
>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>>
>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
>> it works.
>>
>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>>
>> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>
>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>> some other technologies out there.
>>
>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
>How do they make the hydrogen? Do ya suppose their is some energy use
>to make that happen? And is the energy gained higher or lower than the
>energy expense to get the hydrogen?
In Iceland, I believe that they have geothermal power plants taking
advantage of hot lava areas underground.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 11:28:48
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
Clark F Morris wrote:
> On 5 2007 05:22:38 -0800, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
> <peter@vecchios.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4, 2:55 pm, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>>>> There are two versions of it...
>>>>> bike:
>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>>>> and bus:
>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>>>
>>> Heaven Help Bus
>>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>>>
>>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
>>> it works.
>>>
>>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
>>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
>>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>>>
>>> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>>
>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>>> some other technologies out there.
>>>
>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>> How do they make the hydrogen? Do ya suppose their is some energy use
>> to make that happen? And is the energy gained higher or lower than the
>> energy expense to get the hydrogen?
>
> In Iceland, I believe that they have geothermal power plants taking
> advantage of hot lava areas underground.
The whole world is not Iceland!!!!!
Bill Baka
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 21:13:08
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 4, 8:33 pm, "George Conklin" <georgeconkl...@earthlink.net >
wrote:
>
> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
Does your proclamation factor in the extra time those cars would be on
the road if each of those morning rush hour transit buses were
replaced by 80-100 cars? Or the fuel cost cars themselves, for that
matter?
And their parking, in terms of distance and time and cost? How's a
fuel cell going to help those things? Heck, a lot of 'efficient' fuel
systems aren't even allowed to park in high-density underground lots.
Transit buses may be inefficient in some places, but in others, like
my downtown, you have to look at the cars and ask "why bother?"
Fastest to slowest in Toronto for distances between 6 and 100 blocks:
Subway, bus, bicycle, streetcar, car. In really bad weather, insert
"pedestrian" between bike and streetcar (up to 50 blocks, anyway.)
|
| |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 13:55:10
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com >
wrote:
> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> > And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> > little furry animals are here to stay.
>
> > There are two versions of it...
>
> > bike:
>
> >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>
> > and bus:
>
> >http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>
> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
technologies and some political will to make it happen...
Heaven Help Bus
A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
it works.
The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
pipe: a trickle of water.
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
some other technologies out there.
We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
|
| | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 00:44:55
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
donquijote1954 wrote:
> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> wrote:
>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>> There are two versions of it...
>>> bike:
>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>> and bus:
>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>
> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>
> Heaven Help Bus
> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>
> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> it works.
>
> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> pipe: a trickle of water.
>
> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>
> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> some other technologies out there.
>
> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>
Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
Bill Baka
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 18:36:50
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>>> There are two versions of it...
>>>> bike:
>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>>> and bus:
>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>>
>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>>
>> Heaven Help Bus
>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>>
>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
>> it works.
>>
>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>>
>> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>
>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>> some other technologies out there.
>>
>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>>
> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro, or,
> dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> Bill Baka
You will notice that there was no mention of the obvious. If you use the
electricity without converting it to anything it's clean (Hydrogen is not as
clean) then you do get what you want. Shoot, even the Feds recognise that
at tax time. Like the Hybrids (which are actually dismall failures for a
replacement, just a stop gap) you get tax credits if you buy an electric
car. Check out Portland, Ore for being Electric Friendly. But until
everyone gets their noses out of the Petro or Carbon fuel BS don't look for
it to go much further. Electrics now have the same range as the "Hydrogens"
and "Fuel Cells" and are a danged sight easier to maintain without going
boom in the night. Yes, Gertrude, Hydrogen is very, very dangerous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3877 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 01:33:58
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> >>> There are two versions of it...
> >>> bike:
> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> >>> and bus:
> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
> >
> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
> >
> > Heaven Help Bus
> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
> >
> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> > it works.
> >
> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> > pipe: a trickle of water.
> >
> > http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
> >
> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> > some other technologies out there.
> >
> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >
> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> Bill Baka
Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Mar 2007 16:51:35
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>
Nope. Different uses. Buses do a LOT more stop-and-go than cars -- which
is what wastes fuel.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 08:08:32
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
That is simply not true. A transit bus is a large mass that experiences
more than average stop-and-go travel. For that kind of use case,
regenerative braking will show bigger gains than it would for your
average highway commuter car.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Mar 2007 18:37:53
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>> >>> There are two versions of it...
>> >>> bike:
>> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>> >>> and bus:
>> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>> >
>> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>> >
>> > Heaven Help Bus
>> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>> >
>> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
>> > it works.
>> >
>> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
>> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
>> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>> > pipe: a trickle of water.
>> >
>> > http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>> >
>> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>> > some other technologies out there.
>> >
>> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>> >
>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>> Bill Baka
>
> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 3877 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 12:26:41
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@colwestnospam.com > wrote in message
news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
> >> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
problem.
> >> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
> >> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
> >> >>> There are two versions of it...
> >> >>> bike:
> >> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
> >> >>> and bus:
> >> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
> >> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
> >> >
> >> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
> >> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
> >> >
> >> > Heaven Help Bus
> >> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
> >> >
> >> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
> >> > it works.
> >> >
> >> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
> >> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
cruise
> >> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
> >> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
> >> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
> >> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
> >> > pipe: a trickle of water.
> >> >
> >> >
http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
> >> >
> >> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
> >> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
> >> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
> >> > some other technologies out there.
> >> >
> >> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
> >> >
> >> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
> >> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
> >> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
> >> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
> >> Bill Baka
> >
> > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>
> Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas. And of course a plug-in hybrid
electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 13:11:44
From: Daryl Hunt
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:50UGh.97510$_73.54989@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Daryl Hunt" <dhunt@colwestnospam.com> wrote in message
> news:45eb751d$1@news.i70west.com...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:asKGh.6638$PL.5274@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> >> donquijote1954 wrote:
>> >> > On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the
> problem.
>> >> >>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>> >> >>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>> >> >>> There are two versions of it...
>> >> >>> bike:
>> >> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>> >> >>> and bus:
>> >> >>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>> >> >> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>> >> >
>> >> > You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>> >> > technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>> >> >
>> >> > Heaven Help Bus
>> >> > A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>> >> >
>> >> > The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future,
>> >> > and
>> >> > it works.
>> >> >
>> >> > The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>> >> > Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we
> cruise
>> >> > through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>> >> > up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>> >> > would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years
>> >> > ago
>> >> > are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>> >> > pipe: a trickle of water.
>> >> >
>> >> >
> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>> >> >
>> >> > I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>> >> > could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>> >> > replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>> >> > some other technologies out there.
>> >> >
>> >> > We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>> >> >
>> >> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
>> >> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>> >> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
>> >> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>> >> Bill Baka
>> >
>> > Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>> > efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>>
>> Not all, I think I read somewhere where a city went to Electrics.
>
> Ok, that exports pollution to rural areas.
Nope, we run out tricity from Hydroelectric around here and export it to
other regions. If you are in California you can almost bet that there are a
couple or three megawatts passing through.
And of course a plug-in hybrid
> electric car would meet about 90% of the commuting needs of America.
And still pollute like any other gasoline powered car. Newsflash, the
electric power is made from Gasoline.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Mar 2007 05:09:44
From: Bill Baka
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
George Conklin wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:bKJGh.1392$8i6.1082@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> donquijote1954 wrote:
>>> On 4, 9:49 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <p...@vecchios.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 3, 11:47 am, "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey, be st. You are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
>>>>> And you save the buck. Dinosaurs are a thing of the past and the
>>>>> little furry animals are here to stay.
>>>>> There are two versions of it...
>>>>> bike:
>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235847689274986069
>>>>> and bus:
>>>>> http://www.zazzle.com/product/235396990102826110
>>>> OK, how is the bus not polluting?
>>> You don't see it everyday, but it's possible. Just some new
>>> technologies and some political will to make it happen...
>>>
>>> Heaven Help Bus
>>> A visit to Iceland spurs dreams of a hydrogen future
>>>
>>> The loneliness of the long-distance rider.I have seen the future, and
>>> it works.
>>>
>>> The 111 bus rolls quietly up to the Mjodd terminal in eastern
>>> Reykjavik at 11:19 a.m., and I climb aboard. For 45 minutes, we cruise
>>> through the suburbs and then to the central square downtown, picking
>>> up and discharging eight passengers along the way. Fuel cells that
>>> would have filled the space of several passenger seats five years ago
>>> are now small enough to fit in the roof panels. And out the exhaust
>>> pipe: a trickle of water.
>>>
>>> http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/07/19/mckibben-hydrogenbus/
>>>
>>> I have a dream...that someday buses will not pollute. Actually we
>>> could make it happen now much easier than having all the cars be
>>> replaced with hybrid. Just change the fleet of buses to hydrogen or
>>> some other technologies out there.
>>>
>>> We can make it happen with THE REVOLUTION. Coming soon...
>>>
>> Too optimistic. Somebody, somewhere is probably burning coal or oil to
>> make the electricity to electrolyze the water to make the Hydrogen.
>> It only really works if the electricity comes from wind, solar, hydro,
>> or, dare I say it, NUculear (Bush pronunciation).
>> Bill Baka
>
> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>
>
Only if nobody rides them. When I was a kid in the Chicago area I could
go anywhere on a weekend with a travel buddy of mine. We took the train
into downtown, then the 'el' ( hard to explain), and over/underground
subway system. Then there were electric trolley buses, and finally
regular buses to get us within walking distance.
And, yes, any one of those modes of transportation sucks fuel big time
if nobody rides them. If they are full they are a good thing. SUV's and
single occupant soccer moms have messed up the equation.
Bill Baka
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Mar 2007 19:07:21
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <sCNGh.6566$BE2.608@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net >,
Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net > wrote:
>>
>> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>>
>>
>Only if nobody rides them.
But you have to have the near-empty runs or the system becomes
less useful overall -- and as a result ridership goes down even on the
popular runs.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Mar 2007 12:42:13
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <QuudnX1SvPpU_HLYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <sCNGh.6566$BE2.608@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> >> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
> >>
> >>
> >Only if nobody rides them.
>
> But you have to have the near-empty runs or the system becomes
> less useful overall -- and as a result ridership goes down even on the
> popular runs.
No, that's just another failure of urban planning. Modern technology
could easily be used to help schedule the frequency and size of transit
vehicles. It should even be possible possible to provide door-to-door
service for the same cost per mile as fuel alone (say around $3 for 25
miles), but somehow city planners got focussed on moving the cars
instead of the people.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 13:19:00
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-BF0D72.12421308032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <QuudnX1SvPpU_HLYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <sCNGh.6566$BE2.608@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
>> >> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Only if nobody rides them.
>>
>> But you have to have the near-empty runs or the system becomes
>> less useful overall -- and as a result ridership goes down even on the
>> popular runs.
>
>No, that's just another failure of urban planning.
It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.
>Modern technology could easily be used to help schedule the frequency
>and size of transit vehicles. It should even be possible possible to
>provide door-to-door service for the same cost per mile as fuel alone
>(say around $3 for 25 miles), but somehow city planners got focussed
>on moving the cars instead of the people.
Is this like Dave Head's fantasy train?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 19:23:39
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:t56dnWRZSPi5LmzYnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
> It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
> everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.
That's rightard bullshit. Nobody is trying to micromanage every aspect of
peoples lives -- except possibly Fundamentalist Christians.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 22:36:17
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
.
>
> It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
> everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.
>
Major cities all have rush hours and off-hours. If anything is to
change, it is the nasty habit of wanting to be awake when the sun shines,
and sleep when it is dark. Somehow we need a political program to convince
us we are not animals.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 00:04:58
From: nash
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:BjlIh.8170$PL.4914@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> .
>>
>> It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
>> everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.
>>
>
> Major cities all have rush hours and off-hours. If anything is to
> change, it is the nasty habit of wanting to be awake when the sun shines,
> and sleep when it is dark. Somehow we need a political program to
> convince
> us we are not animals.
>
>
We were cave people and that is where I biorythms come from even now.
A person on graveyard shift is more likely to get cancer because of it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Mar 2007 00:48:26
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"nash" <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote in message
news:KCmIh.487$zU1.280@pd7urf1no...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:BjlIh.8170$PL.4914@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> > .
> >>
> >> It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
> >> everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good
thing.
> >>
> >
> > Major cities all have rush hours and off-hours. If anything is to
> > change, it is the nasty habit of wanting to be awake when the sun
shines,
> > and sleep when it is dark. Somehow we need a political program to
> > convince
> > us we are not animals.
> >
> >
> We were cave people and that is where I biorythms come from even now.
> A person on graveyard shift is more likely to get cancer because of it.
>
>
Factoid: We get about 1 hour less sleep each night now than they did 100
years ago.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Mar 2007 15:55:12
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <t56dnWRZSPi5LmzYnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-BF0D72.12421308032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >In article <QuudnX1SvPpU_HLYnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> > russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <sCNGh.6566$BE2.608@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> >> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Anything which makes a bus more efficient would make a car even more
> >> >> efficient than the bus. Right now transit buses waste fuel big time.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Only if nobody rides them.
> >>
> >> But you have to have the near-empty runs or the system becomes
> >> less useful overall -- and as a result ridership goes down even on the
> >> popular runs.
> >
> >No, that's just another failure of urban planning.
>
> It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
> everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.
I think you have it backwards. It is the *current* transit system that
micromanages your schedule to match theirs. That it also does so with
great inefficiencies simply adds to the insult. Rightly used,
introducing user-directed scheduling technology actually frees up
everyone to do the job better. Sadly, though, I don't find your
resistance that surprising, as it is just a reflection of the thinking
that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
> >Modern technology could easily be used to help schedule the frequency
> >and size of transit vehicles. It should even be possible possible to
> >provide door-to-door service for the same cost per mile as fuel alone
> >(say around $3 for 25 miles), but somehow city planners got focussed
> >on moving the cars instead of the people.
>
> Is this like Dave Head's fantasy train?
Maybe, but I can't say because I don't know the reference. It's not
something that could be done with just a train, but the reality is that
many modern transit systems need an overhaul and restructuring for
service as though people mattered.
The only "fantasy" device I employ is, when people say they *need* a
car, a hypothetical personal teleporter. If they'd be willing to give
up their car for one, then the real discussion begins on practical
alternatives to get from point A to point B car-free.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Mar 2007 15:34:03
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-81F0DA.15551209032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <t56dnWRZSPi5LmzYnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> It's a failure of urban planning to micromanage every aspect of
>> everyone's lives so they can keep the buses full, which is a good thing.
>
>I think you have it backwards. It is the *current* transit system that
>micromanages your schedule to match theirs.
It tries to, yes. But it fails to, so ends up with empty vehicles.
The occasional (or more than occasional) runs and routes which are in
place for political reasons don't help either.
>Maybe, but I can't say because I don't know the reference. It's not
>something that could be done with just a train, but the reality is that
>many modern transit systems need an overhaul and restructuring for
>service as though people mattered.
But people -- that is, riders -- don't matter in transit. What
matters is the politicians, transit unions, urban planners, and
anti-car advocates (but I repeat myself).
>The only "fantasy" device I employ is, when people say they *need* a
>car, a hypothetical personal teleporter. If they'd be willing to give
>up their car for one, then the real discussion begins on practical
>alternatives to get from point A to point B car-free.
As long as the _real_ devices for getting from point A to point B
car-free are not nearly as good as a car, why should people consider
them? What's so specifically bad about cars, that wouldn't be a
problem with other _actual_ ways of getting around?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 16:27:33
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <NoidnSw8e7cm-mnYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> But people -- that is, riders -- don't matter in transit. What
> matters is the politicians, transit unions, urban planners, and
> anti-car advocates (but I repeat myself).
That is the current state of affairs, yes. We both seem agree that it
is wrong. Where we seem to disagree is that you expect those factors to
remain constant whereas I'm look for solution that allows for reasonable
changes.
> As long as the _real_ devices for getting from point A to point B
> car-free are not nearly as good as a car, why should people consider
> them? What's so specifically bad about cars, that wouldn't be a
> problem with other _actual_ ways of getting around?
The root problem is density. Most travel is the daily commute, getting
one person between home and work with a small amount of cargo. Most
cars fit 4 people comfortably with a trunk for a large amount of cargo.
Then to every "person pod" like that you add an oversized engine and a
tank for fuel to power it over very long distances. On top of it all,
you expect the sole occupant to pay attention and control the whole
contraption at high speeds in an open area with a lot of other such
objects.
What is so specifically *good* about cars?
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Mar 2007 20:56:35
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-BE54F1.16273312032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <NoidnSw8e7cm-mnYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>The root problem is density. Most travel is the daily commute, getting
>one person between home and work with a small amount of cargo. Most
>cars fit 4 people comfortably with a trunk for a large amount of cargo.
>Then to every "person pod" like that you add an oversized engine and a
>tank for fuel to power it over very long distances. On top of it all,
>you expect the sole occupant to pay attention and control the whole
>contraption at high speeds in an open area with a lot of other such
>objects.
>
>What is so specifically *good* about cars?
They take you from where you are to where you want to be when you want
to go. Your trip is in a reasonably comfortable and safe environment,
and it is typically as fast as or faster than any alternative.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2007 05:14:57
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <QoOdnVyDdvROmWvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> >What is so specifically *good* about cars?
>
> They take you from where you are to where you want to be when you want
> to go. Your trip is in a reasonably comfortable and safe environment,
> and it is typically as fast as or faster than any alternative.
None of that is specifically good about cars. Please apply the most
minimal amount of brain power to realize that getting from A to B is the
framework of the problem, not some solution that cars exclusively
supply. Cars aren't that safe when compared to other travel industries.
Cars are only "fast" because they got a priority in the infrastructure.
Since you seem to have a problem wrapping your head around my "personal
teleporter" rhetorical device, let me give you something concrete you
can get today: limousine. As a service, a personal driver gets you all
the benefits of a car you list, along with added bonus that you don't
have to waste your time looking at the road. Are you willing to look at
such a service as distinct from its implementation involving a car? If
so, we can find a real solution. If not, we're having two unrelated
debates.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Mar 2007 14:20:37
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-263B9D.05145714032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <QoOdnVyDdvROmWvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2mnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> >What is so specifically *good* about cars?
>>
>> They take you from where you are to where you want to be when you want
>> to go. Your trip is in a reasonably comfortable and safe environment,
>> and it is typically as fast as or faster than any alternative.
>
>None of that is specifically good about cars.
Among available technology, it is. Your personal transporter beats it
on all counts, but has the major disadvantage of not existing.
>Please apply the most minimal amount of brain power to realize that
>getting from A to B is the framework of the problem, not some
>solution that cars exclusively supply.
Getting from A to B is the basic problem, but it's not sufficient to
solve that. You have to solve it within certain constraints,
including but not limited to constraints of time, safety, cost, and comfort.
>Cars aren't that safe when compared to other travel industries.
They're safe enough compared with their alternatives.
>Cars are only "fast" because they got a priority in the infrastructure.
No, they're fast because they don't have fixed routes and don't have
to stop constantly.
>Since you seem to have a problem wrapping your head around my "personal
>teleporter" rhetorical device, let me give you something concrete you
>can get today: limousine. As a service, a personal driver gets you all
>the benefits of a car you list, along with added bonus that you don't
>have to waste your time looking at the road. Are you willing to look at
>such a service as distinct from its implementation involving a car? If
>so, we can find a real solution. If not, we're having two unrelated
>debates.
You're trying to find a solution to the problem of transportation
without using cars, which to me is like trying to find the solution to
the problem of lighting without electricity. It can be done, but it
is a needless constraint.
Obviously, viewed as transportation, my own personal limo
has all the advantages of my personal car, plus I don't have to bother
to drive or park. Great stuff. But it requires all the resources of
another person just to see to my transportation needs, which makes it
rather extravagant.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2007 07:35:06
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <p9-dncKrWsGY1mXYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> Getting from A to B is the basic problem, but it's not sufficient to
> solve that. You have to solve it within certain constraints,
> including but not limited to constraints of time, safety, cost, and comfort.
And it is your conjecture that the car is the best fit solution? I
obviously greatly disagree with that. There are far better trade-offs
than what ubiquitous driving has given us.
> >Cars aren't that safe when compared to other travel industries.
>
> They're safe enough compared with their alternatives.
Please run down the stats that show the difference being insignificant.
Bonus points if you're willing to call up all the families involved and
tell them their loss was insignificant.
> >Cars are only "fast" because they got a priority in the infrastructure.
>
> No, they're fast because they don't have fixed routes and don't have
> to stop constantly.
What the *fuck* kind of magic car did you buy? Every car I see follows
a fixed route called a goddamn *road*, and their flow is interrupted at
least a dozen times on every trip by signals and signs and other cars.
It's really rather amazing that you think you can argue your point with
such obvious nonsense.
> You're trying to find a solution to the problem of transportation
> without using cars, which to me is like trying to find the solution to
> the problem of lighting without electricity. It can be done, but it
> is a needless constraint.
Bad analogy. I never said cars wouldn't be part of the equation, but
rather that the focus of transit should shift from cars to people.
> Obviously, viewed as transportation, my own personal limo
> has all the advantages of my personal car, plus I don't have to bother
> to drive or park. Great stuff. But it requires all the resources of
> another person just to see to my transportation needs, which makes it
> rather extravagant.
See how easy that was? I took you from the impossible to the merely
extravagant with one simple example. There are plenty of other examples
I could use to baby-step you towards sanity, but I should not have to
hold your hand the entire way.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Mar 2007 10:12:26
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-486708.07350615032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <p9-dncKrWsGY1mXYnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> Getting from A to B is the basic problem, but it's not sufficient to
>> solve that. You have to solve it within certain constraints,
>> including but not limited to constraints of time, safety, cost, and comfort.
>
>And it is your conjecture that the car is the best fit solution? I
>obviously greatly disagree with that. There are far better trade-offs
>than what ubiquitous driving has given us.
>
>> >Cars aren't that safe when compared to other travel industries.
>>
>> They're safe enough compared with their alternatives.
>
>Please run down the stats that show the difference being insignificant.
>Bonus points if you're willing to call up all the families involved and
>tell them their loss was insignificant.
Waving the bloody shirt doesn't change anything; you want me to bring
up people crushed under the wheels of transit vehicles? If you're not
willing to accept the advantages cars have, there's no point in discussion.
>> >Cars are only "fast" because they got a priority in the infrastructure.
>>
>> No, they're fast because they don't have fixed routes and don't have
>> to stop constantly.
>
>What the *fuck* kind of magic car did you buy? Every car I see follows
>a fixed route called a goddamn *road*, and their flow is interrupted at
>least a dozen times on every trip by signals and signs and other cars.
>It's really rather amazing that you think you can argue your point with
>such obvious nonsense.
Just getting abusive and pretending you don't know what is meant by
"fixed route" and "stop constantly" is not making your argument any
more credible. However, I will humor you: A Philadelphia transit bus
runs a route which is fixed. It does not matter if there is a more
direct way or faster way to get a passenger to his destination, the
bus runs the same route regardless. Furthermore, the bus will stop
every block to let passengers on and off, regardless of any signals.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 05:59:48
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <6Y6dnUme3qTH_2TYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-486708.07350615032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> >Please run down the stats that show the difference being insignificant.
> >Bonus points if you're willing to call up all the families involved and
> >tell them their loss was insignificant.
>
> Waving the bloody shirt doesn't change anything; you want me to bring
> up people crushed under the wheels of transit vehicles?
Please do. Bring up deadly plane crashes, too, if you *really* think it
shows air travel as more dangerous. I'm interested in *all* the stats
that support your safety claims, because they really don't favor cars by
any stretch of the imagination.
> If you're not
> willing to accept the advantages cars have, there's no point in discussion.
I'll accept one as soon as you actually offer one. Right now you've
only made generic statements that fly in the face of all available
evidence.
> >
> >What the *fuck* kind of magic car did you buy? Every car I see follows
> >a fixed route called a goddamn *road*, and their flow is interrupted at
> >least a dozen times on every trip by signals and signs and other cars.
> >It's really rather amazing that you think you can argue your point with
> >such obvious nonsense.
>
> Just getting abusive and pretending you don't know what is meant by
> "fixed route" and "stop constantly" is not making your argument any
> more credible. However, I will humor you: A Philadelphia transit bus
> runs a route which is fixed. It does not matter if there is a more
> direct way or faster way to get a passenger to his destination, the
> bus runs the same route regardless. Furthermore, the bus will stop
> every block to let passengers on and off, regardless of any signals.
First, simply using the work "fuck" is not abusive. It is an exact
expression of the incredulity of your arguments, and I feel sorry for
you if you're unwilling to fully use the English language to the point
of actually equating it with abuse.
Second, raising the *current* state of transit is disingenuous when the
foundation for our debate is that we both *know* things are being done
wrong. This is about thinking of ways to solve the existing problems,
not boggle at the continued stupidity of transit planning. There is
nothing inherent in moving large numbers of people around a city that
*requires* the use of a "fixed route" or that vehicles "stop constantly".
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:58:21
From: Jack May
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-A03089.05594816032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <6Y6dnUme3qTH_2TYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
> Second, raising the *current* state of transit is disingenuous when the
> foundation for our debate is that we both *know* things are being done
> wrong. This is about thinking of ways to solve the existing problems,
> not boggle at the continued stupidity of transit planning. There is
> nothing inherent in moving large numbers of people around a city that
> *requires* the use of a "fixed route" or that vehicles "stop constantly".
Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes. You
have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
What you are saying seems to indicate that you do not understand the
fundamental properties of transit. You just want to defend transit by
denying what is obvious.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 06:26:41
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <7MidnfrcpIcrGJnbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote:
> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes. You
> have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
90% of the time they are not in use.
> What you are saying seems to indicate that you do not understand the
> fundamental properties of transit. You just want to defend transit by
> denying what is obvious.
Forgive me if I don't take cues on what is obvious from you.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 15:46:13
From: Jack May
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-D15EE9.06264124032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <7MidnfrcpIcrGJnbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes.
>> You
>> have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
>> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
>> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
>
> It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
> burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
> 90% of the time they are not in use.
A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so. That causes
long delays. You also have to get from your work or home to transit and
wait for the transit to come. That also increase total door to door time.
Obviously neither of these conditions is like parking a car and walking a
very short distance to you office or home door. Parking is not even
remotely like the long delay that are inherently caused by the operation of
transit. The differences between transit and cars is why transit on
average takes three times longer for a commute than using a car
A car not running when it is not needed is a major advantage for cars in
reducing fuel consumption and increasing the life span of the car.
>
>> What you are saying seems to indicate that you do not understand the
>> fundamental properties of transit. You just want to defend transit by
>> denying what is obvious.
>
> Forgive me if I don't take cues on what is obvious from you.
You are not forgiven because either trying to play a game with your really
stupid posts, or you are incapable of understanding what you are saying.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 10:20:28
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-D15EE9.06264124032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <7MidnfrcpIcrGJnbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes.
>>> You
>>> have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
>>> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
>>> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
>>
>> It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
>> burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
>> 90% of the time they are not in use.
>
> A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so. That
> causes long delays. You also have to get from your work or home to
> transit and wait for the transit to come. That also increase total door
> to door time.
>
> Obviously neither of these conditions is like parking a car and walking a
> very short distance to you office or home door. Parking is not even
> remotely like the long delay that are inherently caused by the operation
> of transit. The differences between transit and cars is why transit on
> average takes three times longer for a commute than using a car
What you're failing to see is that when that short distance actually occurs
(and people perceive that they have walked a short distance from a parking
lot many times when they have actually walked further than they thought) it
is because someone has gone to great expense to provide parking
infrastructure for you. Imagine instead that those resources might have
been directed elsewhere to optimize different modes of transportation.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 18:24:35
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:RwRNh.23901$Wc.16662@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >
news:droleary.usenet-D15EE9.06264124032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> In article <7MidnfrcpIcrGJnbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of
routes.
> >>> You
> >>> have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
> >>> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
> >>> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
> >>
> >> It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
> >> burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
> >> 90% of the time they are not in use.
> >
> > A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so. That
> > causes long delays. You also have to get from your work or home to
> > transit and wait for the transit to come. That also increase total door
> > to door time.
> >
> > Obviously neither of these conditions is like parking a car and walking
a
> > very short distance to you office or home door. Parking is not even
> > remotely like the long delay that are inherently caused by the operation
> > of transit. The differences between transit and cars is why transit on
> > average takes three times longer for a commute than using a car
>
> What you're failing to see is that when that short distance actually
occurs
> (and people perceive that they have walked a short distance from a parking
> lot many times when they have actually walked further than they thought)
it
> is because someone has gone to great expense to provide parking
> infrastructure for you. Imagine instead that those resources might have
> been directed elsewhere to optimize different modes of transportation.
Yes, you can have your $1 million apartment with less room than a
single-wide.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 06:12:25
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-D15EE9.06264124032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <7MidnfrcpIcrGJnbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of routes.
> >> You
> >> have to get several people to go between destination on a route. The
> >> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
> >> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
> >
> > It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
> > burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things the
> > 90% of the time they are not in use.
>
> A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.
Neither does mass transit. Again, you're getting caught up in the
current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
they can be done right.
> That causes
> long delays.
Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
than moving the people *and* their cars. Show me how rush hour results
in an improved flow of traffic. Give me some computed average travel
times on the same route for a few managed transit vehicles compared to
many more unmanaged single-occupant vehicles.
> You also have to get from your work or home to transit and
> wait for the transit to come.
No, you don't *have* to do it that way. I see your kind of
short-sighted "planning" every day, so please spare me here.
>That also increase total door to door time.
You provide no evidence. I've asked for this before, but the very
minimum you can do is figure out your own door-to-door commute time and
distance. I think you will be very fortunate if you find your average
speed ends up exceeding a whopping 25mph. Are you really suggesting
that no other form of travel could possibly beat that?
> You are not forgiven because either trying to play a game with your really
> stupid posts, or you are incapable of understanding what you are saying.
One of us definitely seems incapable of understanding what I am saying.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 19:13:58
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.
>
>Neither does mass transit.
>
>Again, you're getting caught up in the
>current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
>with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
>they can be done right.
And again you've got no specifics.
>Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
>than moving the people *and* their cars.
The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
>You provide no evidence. I've asked for this before, but the very
>minimum you can do is figure out your own door-to-door commute time and
>distance. I think you will be very fortunate if you find your average
>speed ends up exceeding a whopping 25mph. Are you really suggesting
>that no other form of travel could possibly beat that?
Takes me 20-30 minutes to get to work in traffic. Distance is 9.5
miles, straight line. Sure enough, quite slow. But the road distance
is about 17 miles. So when are your mass-transit air vehicles going
to be available?
Taking transit, BTW, would be an exercise in futility. It's actually
possible, but it would be a three bus ride taking hours.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 16:20:52
From: nash
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Wrong, CTV a local station is having a climate change week on the News.
They proved yesterday that in all the communities surrounding downtown
Vancouver that transit was just as fast or only 5 minutes difference than
with a car. rainy days would be even better for the bus or train or
skytrain because of traffic and hov lanes. (bus only lane) Cars had to
park and got in jams major reason.
Communities were up to 30 m or less away roughly.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 21:57:52
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <EBwOh.83473$zU1.14004@pd7urf1no >,
nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net > wrote:
>The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
><<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Wrong, CTV a local station is having a climate change week on the News.
>They proved yesterday that in all the communities surrounding downtown
>Vancouver that transit was just as fast or only 5 minutes difference than
>with a car. rainy days would be even better for the bus or train or
>skytrain because of traffic and hov lanes. (bus only lane) Cars had to
>park and got in jams major reason.
>Communities were up to 30 m or less away roughly.
Cherry picking. I can pick any two stations on the R5 (a commuter line
near Philadelphia) and pick a time when the train has just arrived,
and I can beat a car for the same journey. Big deal; there's far more
journeys which go between points which are NOT stations on the same rail line
than that are.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 10:35:06
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:5-CdnbFXVfyttpbbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <EBwOh.83473$zU1.14004@pd7urf1no>,
> nash <zwepytzkehillc9@jetable.net> wrote:
> >The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> >Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.
> ><<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> >Wrong, CTV a local station is having a climate change week on the News.
> >They proved yesterday that in all the communities surrounding downtown
> >Vancouver that transit was just as fast or only 5 minutes difference than
> >with a car. rainy days would be even better for the bus or train or
> >skytrain because of traffic and hov lanes. (bus only lane) Cars had to
> >park and got in jams major reason.
> >Communities were up to 30 m or less away roughly.
>
> Cherry picking. I can pick any two stations on the R5 (a commuter line
> near Philadelphia) and pick a time when the train has just arrived,
> and I can beat a car for the same journey.
Actually you do not because you did not count the time to get to the
station and waiting for the train to get there, and then walking or whatever
to get to your final destination.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Mar 2007 22:53:58
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <uDMOh.16149$PL.9545@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
George Conklin <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>> Cherry picking. I can pick any two stations on the R5 (a commuter line
>> near Philadelphia) and pick a time when the train has just arrived,
>> and I can beat a car for the same journey.
>
>
> Actually you do not because you did not count the time to get to the
>station and waiting for the train to get there, and then walking or whatever
>to get to your final destination.
No, no, my destination WAS the station, and I started at the other
station. There are real homes and businesses close enough to stations
to make this work. I've worked at two places which were a few hundred
feet from a station, and some homes are a similar distance from them.
However, someone living next to an R5 station would not be able to
beat a car to get to a place of work next to an _R6_ station. Transit
loses for the overwhelming majority of trips.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 06:14:13
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> >Again, you're getting caught up in the
> >current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
> >with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
> >they can be done right.
>
> And again you've got no specifics.
No, I'm just not going to bother with them because your focus remains on
what is wrong currently rather than being open to making changes to get
things working right.
> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>
> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
Incorrect. It is your camp that is making extraordinary claims. All
I'm interested in is moving people. It is you who have complicated the
matter by adding in the necessity to move automobiles as well. Thus the
burden is on you to demonstrate the added complexity results in
significant benefits. I continue to wait for you to back up your
position.
> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
When did I *ever* say transit was just fine as implemented? Why do I
have to keep restating this point? I have to believe you are trolling
or astroturfing or engaging in some other anti-social behavior when you
continue to disregard my call for changes.
> Takes me 20-30 minutes to get to work in traffic. Distance is 9.5
> miles, straight line. Sure enough, quite slow. But the road distance
> is about 17 miles. So when are your mass-transit air vehicles going
> to be available?
Yes, because transit planning must *only* be the mandatory false
dichotomy between flying like a bird and a gridlock of pavement.
> Taking transit, BTW, would be an exercise in futility. It's actually
> possible, but it would be a three bus ride taking hours.
Modesty, sir, your psychopathy is showing again!
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 14:36:02
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-3EDC9F.06141326032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Again, you're getting caught up in the
>> >current model of car-centric, bad transit planning. Stop bothering me
>> >with things we all know are done wrong and lets move on to thinking how
>> >they can be done right.
>>
>> And again you've got no specifics.
>
>No, I'm just not going to bother with them because your focus remains on
>what is wrong currently rather than being open to making changes to get
>things working right.
You got nothing. You're bluffing.
>> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
>> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>
>Incorrect. It is your camp that is making extraordinary claims. All
>I'm interested in is moving people. It is you who have complicated the
>matter by adding in the necessity to move automobiles as well. Thus the
>burden is on you to demonstrate the added complexity results in
>significant benefits. I continue to wait for you to back up your
>position.
How about this: I concede. It is not true that moving just the
people *must* take more time than moving the people *and* their cars.
Now: show me a practical system which relies on this fact to actually
move the people faster than their cars move.
>> Taking transit, BTW, would be an exercise in futility. It's actually
>> possible, but it would be a three bus ride taking hours.
>
>Modesty, sir, your psychopathy is showing again!
I'm a psychopath for pointing out how long it would take me to get to
work via transit? I think you do not know the meaning of the word.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 08:31:28
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <iv2dnSNMksE_vZXbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-3EDC9F.06141326032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> >No, I'm just not going to bother with them because your focus remains on
> >what is wrong currently rather than being open to making changes to get
> >things working right.
>
> You got nothing. You're bluffing.
Rather I realize I have nothing you want to hear. Your position boils
down to "cars are the best!" where my position is "mass transit can be
made better". You and Conklin seem disturbingly fixated on how things
are, as though we live in the best of all possible worlds, such that it
is of no use providing links to other transit systems that are better
planned.
> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
> >>
> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> >
> >Incorrect. It is your camp that is making extraordinary claims. All
> >I'm interested in is moving people. It is you who have complicated the
> >matter by adding in the necessity to move automobiles as well. Thus the
> >burden is on you to demonstrate the added complexity results in
> >significant benefits. I continue to wait for you to back up your
> >position.
>
> How about this: I concede. It is not true that moving just the
> people *must* take more time than moving the people *and* their cars.
>
> Now: show me a practical system which relies on this fact to actually
> move the people faster than their cars move.
Other's have already provided links to cities outside the US that have
more reasonable transit planning, but let me say your fixation on
"faster" is also painting you into an unreasonable corner. While in
many cases it *can* be faster to move people with mass transit, the fact
remains that driving a car is essentially wasted time, and the
relatively high cost of car travel means you have to work more time to
pay for it. And that doesn't even begin to cover all the other
resources that are put into supporting the car-centric infrastructure.
Your thinking on the issue seems very one dimensional, so don't be
surprised if I'm not falling all over myself to cast pearls before swine.
> >> Taking transit, BTW, would be an exercise in futility. It's actually
> >> possible, but it would be a three bus ride taking hours.
> >
> >Modesty, sir, your psychopathy is showing again!
>
> I'm a psychopath for pointing out how long it would take me to get to
> work via transit? I think you do not know the meaning of the word.
You may be right. A psychopath is abnormal, whereas your mentality
seems all too common. So just stop droning on with the woes of whatever
*current* shitty transit system you're suffering with. It's something
we all see already and it adds nothing to a discussion about fixing
things. If you actually want to make yourself useful, you'd list the
properties that are necessary for you to get around rather than trying
to hammer home the car as the ultimate solution.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 20:42:02
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-999E60.08312727032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>In article <iv2dnSNMksE_vZXbnZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <droleary.usenet-3EDC9F.06141326032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >No, I'm just not going to bother with them because your focus remains on
>> >what is wrong currently rather than being open to making changes to get
>> >things working right.
>>
>> You got nothing. You're bluffing.
>
>Rather I realize I have nothing you want to hear.
You've got nothing at all.
>> How about this: I concede. It is not true that moving just the
>> people *must* take more time than moving the people *and* their cars.
>>
>> Now: show me a practical system which relies on this fact to actually
>> move the people faster than their cars move.
>
>Other's have already provided links to cities outside the US that have
>more reasonable transit planning, but let me say your fixation on
>"faster" is also painting you into an unreasonable corner.
Ah, so you know no such system exists, and have no idea how to produce
one.
"Faster" was the criterion that YOU claimed cars were not better at.
Now it appears you can't produce.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 17:13:56
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Mon, 26 2007 14:36:02 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>Modesty, sir, your psychopathy is showing again!
>
>I'm a psychopath for pointing out how long it would take me to get to
>work via transit? I think you do not know the meaning of the word.
Monomania perhaps. A psycopath would be someone that killed his
psychiatrist for calling him a homocidal maniac.
For the record, I regret the unfortunate doctor's death as much as the
next patient.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 19:07:38
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article
<droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
>
> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>
> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
>
Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using car -
especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every trip
by car will be shorter.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 22:35:16
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article
><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>
>> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more time
>> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes longer.
>>
>Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using car -
>especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
difficult for drivers.
>Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every trip
>by car will be shorter.
The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
equivalent. Most trips are faster by car.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 18:39:33
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com>,
> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >> In article
> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >>
> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
time
> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
> >>
> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
longer.
> >>
> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using car -
> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
>
> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
> difficult for drivers.
That's bullshit - said only for effect.
>
> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
trip
> >by car will be shorter.
>
> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
> equivalent.
Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge this
truth.
>Most trips are faster by car.
Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Mar 2007 20:18:15
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <130gti4h7ne4095@corp.supernews.com >,
Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> >> In article
>> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> >>
>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
>time
>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>> >>
>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
>longer.
>> >>
>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using car -
>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
>>
>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
>> difficult for drivers.
>
>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
>>
>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
>trip
>> >by car will be shorter.
>>
>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
>> equivalent.
>
>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge this
>truth.
>>Most trips are faster by car.
>
>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
transit.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 14:14:41
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article <130gti4h7ne4095@corp.supernews.com>,
> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>
>>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> >> In article
>>> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>> >>
>>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
>>time
>>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>>> >>
>>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
>>longer.
>>> >>
>>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
>>> >car -
>>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
>>>
>>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
>>> difficult for drivers.
>>
>>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
>>>
>>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
>>trip
>>> >by car will be shorter.
>>>
>>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
>>> equivalent.
>>
>>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
>>this
>>truth.
>
>>>Most trips are faster by car.
>>
>>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
>
> No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
> cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
> transit.
London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I have
direct experience of.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 23:22:56
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:p8zOh.2260$78.1745@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> news:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> > In article <130gti4h7ne4095@corp.supernews.com>,
> > Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>> In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com>,
> >>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
> >>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> >>> >> In article
> >>> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take
more
> >>time
> >>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
> >>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
> >>longer.
> >>> >>
> >>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
> >>> >car -
> >>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
> >>>
> >>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
> >>> difficult for drivers.
> >>
> >>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
> >>>
> >>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
> >>trip
> >>> >by car will be shorter.
> >>>
> >>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
> >>> equivalent.
> >>
> >>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
> >>this
> >>truth.
> >
> >>>Most trips are faster by car.
> >>
> >>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
> >
> > No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
> > cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
> > transit.
>
> London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I
have
> direct experience of.
>
>
Orlando? You are kidding, right? As far as London is concerned, transit
sucks big time.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 19:56:41
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Wed, 28 2007 14:14:41 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>news:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> In article <130gti4h7ne4095@corp.supernews.com>,
>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>> >> In article
>>>> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take more
>>>time
>>>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>>>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
>>>longer.
>>>> >>
>>>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
>>>> >car -
>>>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
>>>>
>>>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
>>>> difficult for drivers.
>>>
>>>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
>>>>
>>>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
>>>trip
>>>> >by car will be shorter.
>>>>
>>>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
>>>> equivalent.
>>>
>>>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
>>>this
>>>truth.
>>
>>>>Most trips are faster by car.
>>>
>>>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
>>
>> No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
>> cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
>> transit.
>
>London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I have
>direct experience of.
The first three I can believe for many trips although not all trips
since those that don't involve going to or toward the center probably
are faster by car. But Orlando? If you mean Florida, which trips
would be faster by their slow and infrequent transit?
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 18:03:41
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:ivhl03ph3ud4jh9ih23uh1qngtr6p0msga@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 2007 14:14:41 -0500, "Amy Blankenship"
> <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>news:wZudnWmR9sbKX5TbnZ2dnUVZ_rylnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>> In article <130gti4h7ne4095@corp.supernews.com>,
>>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:8Yadna55UKHpoprbnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> In article <130eaqvner87i89@corp.supernews.com>,
>>>>> Baxter <lbax02.spamguard@baxcode.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:rqKdnbwXXNnbjZrbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>>>>> >> In article
>>>>> ><droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> >Prove it. Demonstrate that moving just the people *must* take
>>>>> >> >more
>>>>time
>>>>> >> >than moving the people *and* their cars.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> The burden of proof is on you to show a system where it doesn't.
>>>>> >> Because in most real life as-they-are-today systems, transit takes
>>>>longer.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >Plenty of trips in Portland are quicker using transit than by using
>>>>> >car -
>>>>> >especially when you factor in finding a parking spot.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's Portland, where the planners went out of their way to make life
>>>>> difficult for drivers.
>>>>
>>>>That's bullshit - said only for effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Will *every* trip by transit be shorter? No, not any more than every
>>>>trip
>>>>> >by car will be shorter.
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth of those two statements don't mean the modes are
>>>>> equivalent.
>>>>
>>>>Progress, of a sort. 'Till now you've adamantly refused to acknowledge
>>>>this
>>>>truth.
>>>
>>>>>Most trips are faster by car.
>>>>
>>>>Depends entirely on your catchment area. So your claim is meaningless.
>>>
>>> No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
>>> cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
>>> transit.
>>
>>London, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Orlando. And these are just the ones I
>>have
>>direct experience of.
>
> The first three I can believe for many trips although not all trips
> since those that don't involve going to or toward the center probably
> are faster by car. But Orlando? If you mean Florida, which trips
> would be faster by their slow and infrequent transit?
The University Blvd area. It's much faster to take a bus than to try to
find parking when you get where you are going (and cheaper).
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Mar 2007 12:52:45
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
> No, it's not meaningless. Outside of Manhattan, you have to
> cherry-pick viciously to find an area where most trips are faster by
> transit.
Unfortunately to get between two points in NYC you often have to take the
train into Manhattan and then back out to where you want to go. It takes
forever and ever to do this. Try Brooklyn/Queens by train. Then try the
same trip by car. No comparison.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 13:09:38
From: Baxter
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >That also increase total door to door time.
>
> You provide no evidence. I've asked for this before, but the very
> minimum you can do is figure out your own door-to-door commute time and
> distance. I think you will be very fortunate if you find your average
> speed ends up exceeding a whopping 25mph. Are you really suggesting
> that no other form of travel could possibly beat that?
>
If you were to start at the Expo Center and go to Borders Book store in
downtown Portland, it would probably take you 5 minutes LONGER by car than
by MAX Yellow Line. Your car trip is probably two minutes faster - but then
you have to find a parking space ...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 11:24:36
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >
news:droleary.usenet-D15EE9.06264124032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > > In article <7MidnfrcpIcrGJnbnZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Transit has inherent problems that prevent efficient planning of
routes.
> > >> You
> > >> have to get several people to go between destination on a route.
The
> > >> flexibility does not exist to let people go anywhere they want to go.
> > >> Inherently transit must stop and go to pick up and let off riders.
> > >
> > > It is telling that you don't realize that cars carry the exact same
> > > burdens, with the addition of also having to *park* the damn things
the
> > > 90% of the time they are not in use.
> >
> > A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.
>
> Neither does mass transit.
Ok, it has to stop every 2 blocks or maybe even 3 to pick up and drop off
people. You forget I grew up on mass transit and you can't lie to me.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 06:23:31
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <UZsNh.16133$tD2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >,
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.
> >
> > Neither does mass transit.
>
> Ok, it has to stop every 2 blocks or maybe even 3 to pick up and drop off
> people. You forget I grew up on mass transit and you can't lie to me.
People only get picked up and dropped off at locations they would
already be traveling between; that is a constant regardless of the
transit mode used. Do you *honestly* believe things are less
complicated and time consuming when each individual is moving along that
same path with an object 10 times their size that they have to control
the entire time and store at the destination?
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 14:38:53
From: Matthew T. Russotto
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <droleary.usenet-83C27B.06233126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote:
>
>People only get picked up and dropped off at locations they would
>already be traveling between; that is a constant regardless of the
>transit mode used. Do you *honestly* believe things are less
>complicated and time consuming when each individual is moving along that
>same path with an object 10 times their size that they have to control
>the entire time and store at the destination?
Strawman: Cars do not take the same path as a transit vehicle.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 20:22:08
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net > wrote in message
news:iK6dnVyBaMHQvJXbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
> In article
<droleary.usenet-83C27B.06233126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net >,
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> >People only get picked up and dropped off at locations they would
> >already be traveling between; that is a constant regardless of the
> >transit mode used. Do you *honestly* believe things are less
> >complicated and time consuming when each individual is moving along that
> >same path with an object 10 times their size that they have to control
> >the entire time and store at the destination?
>
> Strawman: Cars do not take the same path as a transit vehicle.
It took my eldest daughter's school bus 1.5 hours from our house to
school. I drove her there is 12 minutes and we got an extra 1+ hour's sleep
per day.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:26:12
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-83C27B.06233126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <UZsNh.16133$tD2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >
news:droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > > In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A car does not have to stop and pick up people ever mile or so.
> > >
> > > Neither does mass transit.
> >
> > Ok, it has to stop every 2 blocks or maybe even 3 to pick up and drop
off
> > people. You forget I grew up on mass transit and you can't lie to me.
>
> People only get picked up and dropped off at locations they would
> already be traveling between;
Not so. People taking the subway to Manhattan from Brooklyn were picked
up at short intervals on the subway. No one got off. They just go on in
the AM, and off in the PM. I don't recall people traveing at all between
two local stops. No demand for that at all.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 21:34:59
From: Jack May
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:UZsNh.16133$tD2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> Ok, it has to stop every 2 blocks or maybe even 3 to pick up and drop off
> people. You forget I grew up on mass transit and you can't lie to me.
Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
understand even the simplest explanations.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:23:10
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:UZsNh.16133$tD2.11795@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >
news:droleary.usenet-F1CFB8.06122525032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> In article <0v6dnbomcoe2N5jbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
>
> > Ok, it has to stop every 2 blocks or maybe even 3 to pick up and drop
off
> > people. You forget I grew up on mass transit and you can't lie to me.
>
> Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
> understand even the simplest explanations.
>
>
I understand what it is like when a family has no car and you are totally
dependent on mass transit and walking. That is how we grew up. My father
did keep a car, 2.5 hours away at my grandfather's house. We used it at the
cabin in the summer only. What a contrast!!! In place of shopping every
day, they shopped twice a week, just for starters.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 06:24:21
From: Doc O'Leary
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net > wrote:
> Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
> understand even the simplest explanations.
Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to run
a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
unaware of it.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 12:24:46
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com > wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
> > understand even the simplest explanations.
>
> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to run
> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
> unaware of it.
>
NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on it, for
example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole way,
packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a newspaper.
Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you could get
a seat only.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 16:09:01
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Mon, 26 2007 12:24:46 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
>news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
>> > understand even the simplest explanations.
>>
>> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to run
>> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
>> unaware of it.
>>
> NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on it, for
>example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole way,
>packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a newspaper.
>Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you could get
>a seat only.
>
Given that people have posted here that they in fact have carried
groceries and other items on the subway, I find the statement that no
one carried them to be false. While I agree with your
characterization of riding to school/work standing all the way packed
in like a sardine for the peak period, peak direction rides, I was
going contra-flow in the rush hour and normally could get a seat.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 18:23:15
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:kprf039adg696f17ehjrepglevsmii5lu4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 2007 12:24:46 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
>
>news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
> >> > understand even the simplest explanations.
> >>
> >> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to
run
> >> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
> >> unaware of it.
> >>
> > NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on it,
for
> >example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole way,
> >packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a newspaper.
> >Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you could
get
> >a seat only.
> >
> Given that people have posted here that they in fact have carried
> groceries and other items on the subway, I find the statement that no
> one carried them to be false.
You don't have 20 years experience on mass transit. The whole goal is to
buy your food on the way home from a subway stop. You do NOT carry it on
the train.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 22:13:37
From: Clark F Morris
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
On Mon, 26 2007 18:23:15 GMT, "George Conklin"
<georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote:
>
>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:kprf039adg696f17ehjrepglevsmii5lu4@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 2007 12:24:46 GMT, "George Conklin"
>> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> >> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
>> >> > understand even the simplest explanations.
>> >>
>> >> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to
>run
>> >> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
>> >> unaware of it.
>> >>
>> > NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on it,
>for
>> >example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole way,
>> >packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a newspaper.
>> >Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you could
>get
>> >a seat only.
>> >
>> Given that people have posted here that they in fact have carried
>> groceries and other items on the subway, I find the statement that no
>> one carried them to be false.
>
> You don't have 20 years experience on mass transit. The whole goal is to
>buy your food on the way home from a subway stop. You do NOT carry it on
>the train.
>
When I worked in Bloomfield, New Jersey I carried my clothes to and
from the dry cleaner on the bus. I also have carried groceries on the
bus. I wouldn't want to do it peak period, peak direction on the
number 7 subway line in New York.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 23:50:33
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca > wrote in message
news:78hg03hs9549d8etuop81kdi3gjb2ddo71@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 2007 18:23:15 GMT, "George Conklin"
> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:kprf039adg696f17ehjrepglevsmii5lu4@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 26 2007 12:24:46 GMT, "George Conklin"
> >> <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >>
>
>>news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> >> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> >> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He
cant
> >> >> > understand even the simplest explanations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to
> >run
> >> >> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
> >> >> unaware of it.
> >> >>
> >> > NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on
it,
> >for
> >> >example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole
way,
> >> >packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a
newspaper.
> >> >Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you
could
> >get
> >> >a seat only.
> >> >
> >> Given that people have posted here that they in fact have carried
> >> groceries and other items on the subway, I find the statement that no
> >> one carried them to be false.
> >
> > You don't have 20 years experience on mass transit. The whole goal is
to
> >buy your food on the way home from a subway stop. You do NOT carry it on
> >the train.
> >
> When I worked in Bloomfield, New Jersey I carried my clothes to and
> from the dry cleaner on the bus. I also have carried groceries on the
> bus. I wouldn't want to do it peak period, peak direction on the
> number 7 subway line in New York.
Or the same train in Bklyn either, in either direction. You could probably
do it on a Saturday or a holiday. But who was really going to do that?
Remember, you shop every day. Or you send the kids out. For ice cream we
went out to Sunday AM and ran home with a pint before it melted. On mass
transit, it would be all gone, one mass of melted goo.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 09:44:11
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:iYONh.15252$PL.7079@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
>> > understand even the simplest explanations.
>>
>> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to run
>> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
>> unaware of it.
>>
> NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on it,
> for
> example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole way,
> packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a newspaper.
> Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you could
> get
> a seat only.
That is foolish. The seats are there. You are saying that literally *no
one* sat in them during peak hours?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 18:22:17
From: George Conklin
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com > wrote in message
news:O_QNh.23884$Wc.11877@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:iYONh.15252$PL.7079@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >
news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> >> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Does no good George. O'Leary is obviously stone cold crazy. He cant
> >> > understand even the simplest explanations.
> >>
> >> Could be. It could also be that your simplicity isn't sufficient to
run
> >> a well-planned transit system. Could be that you're unskilled and
> >> unaware of it.
> >>
> > NYC has a massive transit system. And no one carried groceries on it,
> > for
> > example. No one. And you want to school/work standing up the whole
way,
> > packed in like a sardine. At best some people tried to read a
newspaper.
> > Others did nothing but stand there....most of them. Off-hours you could
> > get
> > a seat only.
>
> That is foolish. The seats are there. You are saying that literally *no
> one* sat in them during peak hours?
>
>
They are always full. You have obviously never dealt with mass transit,
just your idle dreams. Sad.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 13:39:21
From: Amy Blankenship
Subject: Re: Ride an SUB not an SUV
|
"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:tbUNh.17971$Jl.6141@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
> news:O_QNh.23884$Wc.11877@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:iYONh.15252$PL.7079@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Doc O'Leary" <droleary.usenet@1q2007.subsume.com> wrote in message
>> >
> news:droleary.usenet-76D9F0.06242126032007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> >> In article <1fedncNu6qz70JrbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> >> "Jack May" <jack
|
|
