Attitude Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 semantics! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Attitude said: Trask does mountaingoats. Yep, and they bark like a dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 MtnGoat said: "MtnGoat, you refuse to carry on any sort of converstaion based in reality."  blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah  Whatever, mtngoat. have a great day!  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 yes, nice response from an "open mind". Actually challenge their cherished views and instead of dealing with it, they see blah blah blah. What a sign of "enlightenment". Maybe you ought to cover your eyes and repeat "I can't read you". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 is it just me or are the smilies and images and shit fucked up today? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 that serves the same purpose Josh, congrats. must be something to be part of a movement so adept at dealing with dissenting ideas on such a high level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Is there an echo in here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Attitude Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â JK: "I'm not, but you are." Â MG: "I'm not, but you are." Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 MtnGoat said: yes, nice response from an "open mind". Actually challenge their cherished views and instead of dealing with it, they see blah blah blah. What a sign of "enlightenment". Maybe you ought to cover your eyes and repeat "I can't read you". Â you have been told repeatedly that 98% (or wahtever overwhelming percentage) of SUVs are not used for off-roading, that only a few people do things requiring more than a 2-wheel drive yet SUV sales are ~30% of all car sales in the us today, that SUV are dangerous to their drivers and others on the road. yet you keep hammering that nobody can be sure the suit driving across 520 in his tank may just need it after work or whatever. without addressing the salient facts cited above. i don't have to demonstrate to you that the laws of probability indicate that said suit is most likely not going to need commuting in a tank for after work pursuits. Â yet, i am sure you'll keep focussing on the fact that there exists a very small chance teh wrong car may be tagged instead of admitting that driving a SUV for mondane tasks is very wasteful. furthermore it will take you many lines to express this simple fact and much time for your readers to decipher what you are saying. and you wonder why joshk and others are done debating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 I plan on buying a bradley fighting vehicle next. It'll be priceless at the McD's drive-thru when I pop the turret to order up some shakes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 trask said: is it just me or are the smilies and images and shit fucked up today? Â for me too. I don't see smilies but boxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 j_b said: MtnGoat said: yes, nice response from an "open mind". Actually challenge their cherished views and instead of dealing with it, they see blah blah blah. What a sign of "enlightenment". Maybe you ought to cover your eyes and repeat "I can't read you". Â you have been told repeatedly that 98% (or wahtever overwhelming percentage) of SUVs are not used for off-roading, that only a few people do things requiring more than a 2-wheel drive yet SUV sales are ~30% of all car sales in the us today, that SUV are dangerous to their drivers and others on the road. yet you keep hammering that nobody can be sure the suit driving across 520 in his tank may just need it after work or whatever. without addressing the salient facts cited above. i don't have to demonstrate to you that the laws of probability indicate that said suit is most likely not going to need commuting in a tank for after work pursuits. Â yet, i am sure you'll keep focussing on the fact that there exists a very small chance teh wrong car may be tagged instead of admitting that driving a SUV for mondane tasks is very wasteful. furthermore it will take you many lines to express this simple fact and much time for your readers to decipher what you are saying. and you wonder why joshk and others are done debating? Â Repeats from way back: Â - Sportscars, big-vans with V-8's, most luxury sedans, and most mini-vans are every bit as wasteful as the average SUV. Check for yourself at www.fueleconomy.gov - It is the government that determines what is an acceptable level of fuel economy, and what is not. Ditto for safety. Â - The statistical argument is a crock. That's like claiming that since X% of a certain group are criminals you are justified in pointing to one out of every X of them that pass by and labelling them as criminals. The fact of the matter is that you have no idea what a given person does with their vehicle, no matter what they look like at any moment in particular. Further, unless the vehicle has been outlawed it's not your place to tell anyone else what is as suitable vehicle for their lifestyle and what is not. Â -If you are getting upset at SUV drivers because they are not constantly making use of all of their vehicle's capabilties, you should also get upset at someone for driving a van rarely has all of the seats filled or its interior stuffed with its cargo. That's what vans are made for, right? If they are not constantly filled with passengers/cargo then they are guilty of the same sin that you are condemning SUV owners of - consuming more fuel than the owners average transportation needs warrants. Â -The driver is the most important determinant of the risk a vehicle presents to other drivers. Â Just about all of the arguments put forward that claim that SUVs are uniquely detrimental to the environment are riddled with inconsistencies and rife with bald assertions that can't be backed up with hard data. It's not surprising that they have been uncritically accepted by, and have found favor within the groups that recite them, however. Â Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 "you have been told repeatedly that 98% (or wahtever overwhelming percentage) of SUVs are not used for off-roading, ......" Â Great. Not one of these issues means anybody deserves some self issued enforcer placing crap on their vehicle. Â Neither does one of these issues, or even all of them combined, mean these folks don't have the right to drive what they please, or that they aren't aware of these issues when they *still* choose to own one, to the consternation of others who feel the only valid choice is what they value for their own reasons. Â "i don't have to demonstrate to you that the laws of probability indicate that said suit is most likely not going to need commuting in a tank for after work pursuits. " Â and yet when it comes to policing behavior, some folks here are entirely ready to put stickers on his vehicle without actually *knowing* that person, which is the problem. Making observations about odds is one thing, taking to task actual individuals you pick out, and you know nothing about, because of said odds, is ludicrous. Â "instead of admitting that driving a SUV for mondane tasks is very wasteful." Â Why should I admit it? Waste is not the same thing to everyone. I find riding a jet wasteful. I think driving to the mountains for selfish reasons of personal pleasure could be considered wasteful. *ANYTHING* not needed for the extreme basics of hand to mouth existence can be considered wasteful. But no, folks want what they want not to be wasteful and if someone else chooses differently, by golly look at those bastards. How dare they. Â The whole idea of liberty is deciding for yourself what you value and pursuing it, not being beholden to a bunch of self appointed nannies and ascetics intent on judging everyone around them and appointing taxes, payments, judgement, and punishment for the sins of not worshipping at the altar of your particular worldview. Â It seems the folks most concered about "choice" and "diversity" only apply these ideals on the most superficial areas imaginable, generally where they *already* agree with someone. Â "and you wonder why joshk and others are done debating?" Â I already know why. The same folks concerned about being "open minded" can't handle more than a soundbite of response on the most simple ideas possible, especially when you dare disagree. I see plenty of folks, posting plenty of long responses, and yet the most intense complaining occurs when it's not the liberal line being followed. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 I see this thread is still alive. Anybody winning? What's the score? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 obviously I'll keep my answer short but it's not for lack of disagreeing with much of what you guys have to say. Â % of the world population living in the US: 6% Â % of world energy used in the US: 30% Â % of world CO2 release emitted in the US: 25% Â % of world military spending done by the US: 50% Â estimated lifespan of current oil reserves at current level of consomption: a few decades (20-30 years? some say less) Â i think all the numbers above are related. Â i also think that the current policy of encouraging gas hogs (of which the fastest growing type: SUVs) over energy efficient vehicles is for short term profit, does not account for our medium term needs, needlessly wastes away an energy source that could be slowly used for more worthwhile goals, and is responsible for much of the violence occurring today in the world. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Take as long as you want. Start with the figures at www.fueleconomy.gov and work your way down.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 who fucking cares? thirty some pages of the same argument. give it a rest you goddamn TOOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternalX Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 (edited) We aren't anywhere close to runnig out of oil. It'll be around for a hundred years. That stuff they told you in school was a crock. Â Having said that, I really think we need to get ourselves off the stuff because it ties us to the middle east. The best way to do that is to stop subsidizing the vehicle market and charging use fees for gasoline. Only when people actually see how much a car really costs will they start to make better decisions related to them. Â --and that makes post one hundred.... i'm a real wanker now daddy! Â Edited April 17, 2003 by eternalX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 (edited) trask said: I see this thread is still alive. Anybody winning? What's the score? Â I just don't care. You all suck! Edited April 17, 2003 by AlpineK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 JayB said: Take as long as you want. Start with the figures at www.fueleconomy.gov and work your way down.... Â jay - you know as well as I do that the "more fuel energy efficient" SUV's are also the most dangerous. Light SUV's have little payload capability; fact usually unknown to their owners which leads to many accidents. Â anyway I am not 'condoning' the use of an empty V8 van to drive oneself around, or 'condemning' the occasional use of a sport car. i am only saying that doing an increasing amount of our transportation in gas guzzlers does not make any sense considering the energy problems we are facing. Â I won't discuss the SUV media culture of running over every piece of dirt and grass with knobby tires because its implications are self-evident to most people on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 I saw some sunovabitch driving down I5 today in a convertable with his top up!!!!! I'll bet that bastard rarely drives with his top down!!! What a waste of hinges and cloth!!! I can't believe the nerve of these people, not constantly using their vehicles to the full capability. And...I'm guilty myself...I just looked in my closet, and realized I own a down jacket!!! Here's the clincher..I only wear it when it's cold, not every day! I hate myself for my wastefulness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 j_b said: JayB said: Take as long as you want. Start with the figures at www.fueleconomy.gov and work your way down....  jay - you know as well as I do that the "more fuel energy efficient" SUV's are also the most dangerous. Light SUV's have little payload capability; fact usually unknown to their owners which leads to many accidents. SUVs suck because they use up to much fuel...SUVs that don't use too much fuel still suck because...because....because, well, just because  Good thing opinions are free. Otherwise you guys would be bashing the people who could afford them, calling them an unnecessary luxury item Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 jb's just jealous cause he has a short dick and halitosis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted April 17, 2003 Share Posted April 17, 2003 Post deleted by Charlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.