Republicans and other bastards are trying to slow you down
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
SLOW YOU DOWN.
We shall see:
On Nov 29, 3:55 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 06:55:54 -0500, dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> In article<HISdnWrnh6pWCnXRnZ2dnUVZ_jSdn...@giganews.com>,
> >> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
> >>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
> >>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
> >>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>
> >> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
> >> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>
> >>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
> >>> conservation.
>
> >> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>
> >Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
> >electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
> >or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
> >electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>
> Miniscule. Won't really help. You would need to turn off the
> electricity to the TV for hours and not watch it - that'd make a
> difference, if everybody did it. But of course that is boring.
It's boring not to watch TV: This is truly amazing. As if they watched
anything but JUNK on those GIANT SCREEN TV's.
SOLUTION: TURN THAT THING OFF AND LIE IN A HAMMOCK.
Of course, you may choose to do whatever you want including paying
attention to your wife. MAKING LOVE IS A LOT OF FUN FOR THE CALORIES
BURNED!
>
> >How about making sure air leaks, perhaps around electrical outlets, are
> >sealed off?
>
> Maybe.
What do you mean "maybe"? A leak will drain your energy, common sense.
>
> >How about making sure tires are properly inflated on our car and not
> >making jack-rabbit starts and stops? How about making all your errands
> >on trip instead of spreading them out so that the engine stays warm and
> >is more fuel-efficient?
>
> Miniscule. What you're talking about for real savings is what he said
> - staying in one place, shivering in the dark. That would cut a
> _little_ consumption, while the huge buildings and factories and etc.
> go right on consuming.
Shivering in the dark, huh? Minding what the factories consume but not
you. Are you trying to get OFF THE HOOK?
>
> >> Sure, cutting my energy use by X% won't do that. But cutting it by X%
> >> every time the subject comes up will.
>
> >We're not talking about making people suffer.
>
> Oh, yes we are.
Suffer, huh? How about playing some nice soft music in the dark. I
just a bought an HD radio receiver that consumes 3 watts! (plus the
amplified speakers).
I'm suffering a lot. ;)
>
> >Only about using less fuel
> >that is wasted. And, it will also save money.
>
> Not so's you'd notice. Want to really save money? Build a new house
> in place of the one you have that is superinsulated and uses a
> geothermal heat pump. Now, THAT would save some energy. But that'd
> cost you probably between $100K - $200K. Knocking down the old,
> fuel-inefficient house so it doesn't consume out the wazoo wouldn't be
> free, either.
There you go, expend money to save money. Sometimes it's not even
necessary or possible. Hey, no excuse to do nothing!
>
> And, of course these greens are talking about everyone riding
> bicycles, regardless of maybe arthritis considerations, or the fact
> that they live 20 miles out in the country almost halfway between the
> nearest city and work, which is 17 miles the other way. Sure, take
> people's cars away, that's what this nonsense is about.
>
Listen, you created the s-p-r-a-w-l and now you are bitching about it,
huh? Well, now you have to ride your bike on it, and it should all
right. By the way, don't forget to build sidewalks next time you build
for the SUV culture.
And don't forget about your wife! Tell her the Wise TibetanMonkey told
you! She'll be praying to me!
--------------------------------------------------------
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
> backyard philosopher wrote:
> > One solution is to get folding bike.
>
> Can't get a basket on those
Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.
The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The other
bastards will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry about
tickets.
This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...
http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=397
Let the Republicans die of envy!
Forrest Hodge
> On Nov 29, 10:17 am, Vince<vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>
>>> One solution is to get folding bike.
>>
>> Can't get a basket on those
>
> Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.
>
> The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
> rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The other
> bastards will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry about
> tickets.
>
> This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...
>
> http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=397
>
> Let the Republicans die of envy!
>
My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.
Forrest Hodge
No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
That's when you most need a combination of car and bicycle.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On 11/29/10 11:05 AM, Conscience wrote:
>
> > On 2010-11-29 05:15:33 -0800, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> said:
>
> >> Total bullshit... maybe twenty cents....
>
> > It's all bullshit, with numbers made up of whole cloth. More of the real
> > agenda leaks every day:
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165...
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2djybba
>
> And saving electricity will be bad how?
"SAVING" is a taboo word in the Republican jargon. They don't want you
to slow down the consumption of foreign commodities.
Hey, my wild bird seeds say grown in America! Wow, this is getting
real patriotic now.
But of course, we know the Liberals are to blame. ;)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
<kingpin+n...@lumbercartel.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 16:40:55 -0800, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the
> Free Spirits of the Jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 1:22 pm, "Randolf Richardson (Lumber Cartel, local 42)"
> > <kingpin+n...@lumbercartel.ca> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 06:33:21 -0800, His Highness the TibetanMonkey &
> >> the Free Spirits of the Jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 27, 8:10 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> On 26/11/2010 17:22, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Free
> >>>> Spirits of the Jungle wrote:
> >> [sNip]
> >>>>> So she would probably recommend flying your own private jet. How
> >>>>> about a helicopter to go to work and beat traffic jams?
>
> >>>> I'd love to, which is rather the point.
>
> >>> If Big Brother wanted to protect Americans, they'd do something about
> >>> traffic. Some 40K deaths plus occur on our chaotic roads every year.
> >>> But accidents don't make the news like an airplane going down. They
> >>> would probably need to regulate the reckless driving of most SUVs as
> >>> well as the cell phone. Too bad the powerful people take advantage of
> >>> them.
>
> >> In Canada our government overbuilds the roads so that people
> >> who speed can still be relatively safe, and then there's active
> >> enforcement of speed limits. In fact, during the past few years the
> >> laws have been improved to increase the severity of fines and
> >> consequences for dangerous driving, and also many restrictions have
> >> been placed on cellular telephone use that make it almost as serious
> >> as impaired driving -- if you're not using a hands-free device with
> >> your cellular while driving, you are in violation of Canadian law and
> >> the police actually enforce it here.
>
> >> I hope that the USA, and other countries, will follow our
> >> lead.
>
> > It has long seemed to me that America has been looking South in order
> > to feel good compared to the Banana Republics, when it should have
> > been looking North, particularly when it comes to SAFETY, GATED
> > COMMUNITIES, AND HEALTHCARE.
>
> Well, we're a long way from perfect too. There are many other things we
> could benefit from too.
>
> > Now two questions:
>
> > 1- Do you have LANE DISCIPLINE in Canada or are SUVs zigzagging all
> > around you?
>
> I haven't seen much of that from my SUV. Most of the street racers
> around here drive little hopped up Honda and Nissan cars with spoilers and
> other add-ons (which I assume are there to support certain wind flow
> enhancement theories, although they never seem to be enough to outrun the
> RCMP).
Well, I can only hope you are NOT among the worst dinosaurs. I think
they were among the worst mistakes of evolution --right after man.
Dinosaur is a metaphor for Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles, of course.
I see the need for some of them, but I also see the "arms race"
unleashed by them.
>
> > 2- Do you have Gated Communities in Canada?
>
> Yes, there are some. For example, all the 7-Eleven stores have gates
> (although they're never locked) which do lead to small communities (e.g.,
> repeat customers who greet the staff on a first-name basis and engage in
> friendly banter every day).
Wow, a friendly place like right here in North America!
>
> > 3- Do you still have people waiting for Jesus to solve the problems
> > of the world (optional question)?
>
> Yes (even though it's optional here) -- there are too many.
Good, and I hope they don't vote Republican!
Do you know you live among the places most hated by them, a SOCIALIST
UTOPIA!?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<UOOdnVKmpM7V3m_RnZ2dnUVZ_qidn...@giganews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<HISdnWrnh6pWCnXRnZ2dnUVZ_jSdn...@giganews.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. That's quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
> >>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like 0.3%
>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Total bullshit..
>
> >>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
> >>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all color
> >>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>
> >>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>
> >>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>
> >>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
> >>>>>> of electricity.
>
> >>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
> >>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>
> >>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>
> >>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
> >>>>http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>
> >>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
> >>> university.
>
> >> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>
> > Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>
> >> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
> >> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>
> > It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
> > ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>
> WTF?
>
> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>
> >> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>
> > Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>
> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
> Operated by the University of California"?
>
> > It is part
> > of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
> > It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
> > is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
> > Berkeley University.
>
> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
> California.
>
> > It does not speak for the DOE
>
> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>
> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>
> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>
> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>
> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
> to the correct conclusion.
>
> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
> are incorrect.
These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
dgk
wrote:
Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com>
And then borrow that money and get the nation into debt, not knowing
where to tax --least of all the "sacred cow"... tax gasoline.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Your trillion dollars is at least an order of magnitude too low.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> > wrote:
>
> >> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
> >> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>
> > Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
> > necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>
> Your trillion dollars is at least an order of magnitude too low.
>
Let's say it's been a zillion square. ;)
Forrest Hodge
Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> dr_jeff <u...@msu.edu> wrote :
>
> > Shutting off 3 TVs, 3 VCRs and 2 Amplifiers would save about $20 per
> > month. That's around 150 kWH. This is for doing a little thing that has
> > no change on the quality of life. And, it saves more money in the
> > summer, because the A/C is not needed to pump the heat generated by the
> > electronics. I regularly shut off my internet box, router and laptop
> > when I go to bed or leave for work.
>
> > So by just using power strips, you can save $240 per year. And, no
> > negative consequences.
>
> Hogwash, it would take time, which costs part of our lives.
>
> Just go away, enviro-nazi.
>
> I'm thinking of increasing my carbon footprint because of people like you.
>
> --
> - Jane Galt
>
> By taxing, borrowing and wasting money that the tax slaves must be forced to
> pay back, Government does NOT "create jobs", it NEVER HAS. It actually
> consumes and destroys the wealth that the private sector, which really DOES
> create jobs, could be using to do so!
I think the Republicans/Christians/Rand-ians are doing an awesome job
at destroying the environment, but, of course, you can do worse.
I suggest we open our National Parks to SUVs and hunters.
Opus
>snip<
> >>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>
> >>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
> >>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>
> >> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
> >> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>
> > Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
> > necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>
> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
> to name calling?
People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
enough for you?
And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.
Edward Dolan
news:edf62053-d78a-430c...@j19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...[...]
> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
> to name calling?
>> People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
enough for you?
Agree!
>> And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.
Those wars cost a pittance. What a bargain! I believe we should always
employ our military somewhere in the world since ass always needs to be
kicked. Right now it is Muslim ass that needs to be kicked but that could
change in the near future. Who knows, we may soon have to kick North Korean
ass and maybe even Chinese ass. We should already have leveled Iran with
nuclear weapons, but we presently have a wimp in the White House who does
not know his ass from a hole in the ground.
The main thing is to keep our ass kicking ability up to par. We do not want
our military sitting in barracks at home, getting drunk and raising hell
with civilians. Nay, it is far better that they be gainfully employed abroad
slaughtering our enemies.
But if you want peace and quiet, why not move to Costa Rica. I prefer the
American Empire myself.
Thus spake Zarathustra.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
his)
On Dec 1, 7:28 am, Opus <opusthep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
> for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
> of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
> items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
> deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.
On Dec 1, 8:43 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> Those wars cost a pittance. What a bargain! I believe we should always
> employ our military somewhere in the world since ass always needs to be
> kicked. Right now it is Muslim ass that needs to be kicked but that could
> change in the near future. Who knows, we may soon have to kick North Korean
> ass and maybe even Chinese ass. We should already have leveled Iran with
> nuclear weapons, but we presently have a wimp in the White House who does
> not know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>
> The main thing is to keep our ass kicking ability up to par. We do not want
> our military sitting in barracks at home, getting drunk and raising hell
> with civilians. Nay, it is far better that they be gainfully employed abroad
> slaughtering our enemies.
>
> But if you want peace and quiet, why not move to Costa Rica. I prefer the
> American Empire myself.
I think you are clown, but an evil clown...
http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/evil-clown-costume.jpg
The sooner America applies your philosophy, the sooner everything will
be over. No long agonizing over climate change, just cataclysmic event
leading to the extinction of the species, and thus the New Kingdom
will take over.
This kingdom will be populated by rats and roaches.
Edward Dolan
news:dbac0c7d-001c-47e6...@z20g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
(I do a collage trying to fix Ed's clumsiness. The stupid stuff is
his)
On Dec 1, 8:43 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> Those wars cost a pittance. What a bargain! I believe we should always
> employ our military somewhere in the world since ass always needs to be
> kicked. Right now it is Muslim ass that needs to be kicked but that could
> change in the near future. Who knows, we may soon have to kick North
> Korean
> ass and maybe even Chinese ass. We should already have leveled Iran with
> nuclear weapons, but we presently have a wimp in the White House who does
> not know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>
> The main thing is to keep our ass kicking ability up to par. We do not
> want
> our military sitting in barracks at home, getting drunk and raising hell
> with civilians. Nay, it is far better that they be gainfully employed
> abroad
> slaughtering our enemies.
>
> But if you want peace and quiet, why not move to Costa Rica. I prefer the
> American Empire myself.
>> I think you are clown, but an evil clown...
>> http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/evil-clown-costume.jpg
>> The sooner America applies your philosophy, the sooner everything will
be over. No long agonizing over climate change, just cataclysmic event
leading to the extinction of the species, and thus the New Kingdom
will take over.
>> This kingdom will be populated by rats and roaches.
Well, it will not be populated by you or your progeny because Saint Edward
the Great is going to ensure that at least one atom bomb gets dropped right
on your head. If it takes out all of Florida, it will be no loss to the
world. The whole damn state is nothing but a sand bar anyway.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dbac0c7d-001c-47e6...@z20g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> (I do a collage trying to fix Ed's clumsiness. The stupid stuff is
> his)
> On Dec 1, 8:43 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Those wars cost a pittance. What a bargain! I believe we should always
> > employ our military somewhere in the world since ass always needs to be
> > kicked. Right now it is Muslim ass that needs to be kicked but that could
> > change in the near future. Who knows, we may soon have to kick North
> > Korean
> > ass and maybe even Chinese ass. We should already have leveled Iran with
> > nuclear weapons, but we presently have a wimp in the White House who does
> > not know his ass from a hole in the ground.
>
> > The main thing is to keep our ass kicking ability up to par. We do not
> > want
> > our military sitting in barracks at home, getting drunk and raising hell
> > with civilians. Nay, it is far better that they be gainfully employed
> > abroad
> > slaughtering our enemies.
>
> > But if you want peace and quiet, why not move to Costa Rica. I prefer the
> > American Empire myself.
> >> I think you are clown, but an evil clown...
> >>http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/evil-clown-costume.jpg
> >> The sooner America applies your philosophy, the sooner everything will
>
> be over. No long agonizing over climate change, just cataclysmic event
> leading to the extinction of the species, and thus the New Kingdom
> will take over.
>
> >> This kingdom will be populated by rats and roaches.
>
> the Great is going to ensure that at least one atom bomb gets dropped right
> on your head. If it takes out all of Florida, it will be no loss to the
> world. The whole damn state is nothing but a sand bar anyway.
>
Yeah right...
Edward Dolan
news:0563232b-bee6-4140...@h16g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...[...]
>> Well, it will not be populated by you or your progeny because Saint
>> Edward
>> the Great is going to ensure that at least one atom bomb gets dropped
>> right
>> on your head. If it takes out all of Florida, it will be no loss to the
>> world. The whole damn state is nothing but a sand bar anyway.
>
> Yeah right...
You've got shit for brains all right. Now what else is new?
Fucking Regards,
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0563232b-bee6-4140...@h16g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> [...]
> >> Well, it will not be populated by you or your progeny because Saint
> >> Edward
> >> the Great is going to ensure that at least one atom bomb gets dropped
> >> right
> >> on your head. If it takes out all of Florida, it will be no loss to the
> >> world. The whole damn state is nothing but a sand bar anyway.
>
> > Yeah right...
>
You sure are ugly!
Forrest Hodge
Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
Hey, there are no sidewalks either in most suburbs made for the SUV
so... what do we do, drive an SUV?
Now one question, HOW CAN YOU ENJOY DRIVING A SPORTS CAR IN AMERICA?
So many vigilantes blocking the road and so much predation in speeding
tickets that you feel like driving is for dummies.
I drive a car for dummies, some older Lexus....
(But Opus is right in pointing that out: the bicycle is the best
choice whenever possible)
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
> are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
> inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
> everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
> want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
> unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
> gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
> steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
It is "pedal", not "peddle".
Small wheel are fine for long distances - I have done 125 mile rides in
less than 7 hours on bikes with ISO 305-mm and ISO 406-mm wheels.
Forrest Hodge
If you live in suburbs and choose to ride a bike, that's your decision.
You can move to the city and live in a more bike friendly place. There
are trade offs to living an any given area.
How can I drive driving a sports car? Easy, back country roads and a
police force that concerns itself more with keeping violent offenders
off the streets more so that it does with the occasional hooning.
Forrest Hodge
rather drive there and be there in about 1/3 of the time it takes to
bike. That's not to say I dislike the bicycle, I don't and I do bike for
exercise (though not for 125 miles). But the majority of the time if you
live in the suburbs or a rural area, the car is a much more practical
means of conveyance.
Edward Dolan
news:id745k$e8h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/1/2010 6:50 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° > wrote:
>> On 12/1/2010 3:53 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
>>> are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
>>> inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
>>> everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
>>> want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
>>> unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
>>> gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
>>> steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
>>
>> It is "pedal", not "peddle".
>>
>> Small wheel are fine for long distances - I have done 125 mile rides in
>> less than 7 hours on bikes with ISO 305-mm and ISO 406-mm wheels.
I have never done a century in less than 12 hours. That means it is an all
day ride, from dawn to dusk. 100 miles is too many. 70 miles in one day is
enough for anyone.
> I'll take your word for it. If I have to be somewhere 125 miles away I'd
> rather drive there and be there in about 1/3 of the time it takes to bike.
> That's not to say I dislike the bicycle, I don't and I do bike for
> exercise (though not for 125 miles). But the majority of the time if you
> live in the suburbs or a rural area, the car is a much more practical
> means of conveyance.
Forest Hodge is quite right about the suburbs and rural areas not being
friendly to cyclists. Large cities and small towns are the best venues for
cycling whether they have bike paths or not. However, some rural areas, like
Wisconsin for instance, do have lots of county blacktops which are fine for
cycling, but here in Minnesota it is mostly gravel roads in the countryside.
A gravel road will wear you down, especially on a recumbent.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?
>
> How can I drive driving a sports car? Easy, back country roads and a
> police force that concerns itself more with keeping violent offenders
> off the streets more so that it does with the occasional hooning.
Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "Forrest Hodge" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I'll take your word for it. If I have to be somewhere 125 miles away I'd
> > rather drive there and be there in about 1/3 of the time it takes to bike.
> > That's not to say I dislike the bicycle, I don't and I do bike for
> > exercise (though not for 125 miles). But the majority of the time if you
> > live in the suburbs or a rural area, the car is a much more practical
> > means of conveyance.
>
> Forest Hodge is quite right about the suburbs and rural areas not being
> friendly to cyclists. Large cities and small towns are the best venues for
> cycling whether they have bike paths or not. However, some rural areas, like
> Wisconsin for instance, do have lots of county blacktops which are fine for
> cycling, but here in Minnesota it is mostly gravel roads in the countryside.
> A gravel road will wear you down, especially on a recumbent.
You guys need to get in touch with the urban jungle. There's no place
to ride a bike in America, even less so in the city where people are
forced onto the sidewalks, passing the bucket down to the pedestrian.
You may load you bike on the car and go some place, but that defeats
the purpose of the bicycle as a practical vehicle.
There's simply a MONOPOLY by the automobile and oil industry.
Edward Dolan
news:1c611702-9f50-4d22...@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...[...]
> If you live in suburbs and choose to ride a bike, that's your decision.
> You can move to the city and live in a more bike friendly place. There
> are trade offs to living an any given area.
>> The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?
There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in any
city in the world, even in fucking Florida.
> How can I drive driving a sports car? Easy, back country roads and a
> police force that concerns itself more with keeping violent offenders
> off the streets more so that [than] it does with the occasional hooning
> [?].
>> Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas.
No one hates motor vehicles more than I do. TM would have an ally in me if
he would stop proliferating posts and behave responsibly on these
newsgroups.
Opus
> are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
> inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
> everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
> want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
> unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
> gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
> steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
Why can't you ride a bike? You already stated that the main problem is
it's "suicidal" to ride a bike which I have to assume is because of
the cars on the roads making it so rather than armed mobs roving the
countryside. And as far as time is concerned I used to ride 120 miles
round trip a day to go do things a few towns up the road from me. I
did have to "freshen up" before I did my thing, and part of my "thing"
was the fact that I showed up on a bicycle from 60 miles away. I was
visiting a nursing home and showing I cared enough to ride a bike
there added to the ability to do my job.
As far as having gears on my bike is concerned, having multiple gears
and the knowledge to use them is what we called a "force multiplier"
when I was in the military. I can do more with less effort because I
have multiple gears on my bike, which makes my bike a better tool for
transportation, not decadent, nor decedant, which is a dead person.
dgk
wrote:
Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.
dgk
wrote:
>On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
to.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:53:22 -0500, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com>
I can relate to: "I won't ride a bicycle because is too dangerous!"
Not, "I'm proud to pollute because I can't ride a bike."
You may say out in the boondocks he may have a better chance to
survive than us in the urban warfare.
Edward Dolan
news:dc7c85e5-05b1-4ad5...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
"There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in any
city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in any
> city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
They are out of reach for most people. Where the hell do you live?
Only a few lucky places such as Key West have that privilege. The rest
is a jungle.
Are you living in a home for the old?
h
"dgk" <d...@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:ufmff6h37rb01lper...@4ax.com...
>>Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
>>are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
>>inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
>>everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
>>want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
>>unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
>>gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
>>steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
>
> Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
> isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
> because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
> to.
Well, in my case, we do have public transportation, but barely. There is a
bus that leaves at 6:05 am (bus stop is 5 miles from my house) and would get
me the 18 miles to my office at 9:30. Yes, it really is over 3 hours to go
18 miles. The last bus in the afternoon leaves my office at 4:45 (so it's
impossible to work a full 8 hours) and it would get me back to the bus stop
5 miles from my house at 9:10. That's over 4 hours for 18 miles. I would
actually be spending more time on the bus than at work. So...public transit
"is available" to me, but I certainly would never consider using it.
Edward Dolan
news:d46f6301-2265-44d1...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Walk your bike on the sidewalk until you reach a safe street. Where the hell
do you live? In a hotel in the heart of the city?
A city like Miami will have hundreds of miles of residential streets which
are safe for cycling. ALL small towns in Minnesota are totally safe for
cycling and so are the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). Exactly where
do you live in Florida?
>> Are you living in a home for the old?
Not yet, but I'm expecting.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d46f6301-2265-44d1...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > "There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in
> > any
> > city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
> >> They are out of reach for most people. Where the hell do you live?
>
> Only a few lucky places such as Key West have that privilege. The rest
> is a jungle.
>
> Walk your bike on the sidewalk until you reach a safe street. Where the hell
> do you live? In a hotel in the heart of the city?
>
> A city like Miami will have hundreds of miles of residential streets which
> are safe for cycling. ALL small towns in Minnesota are totally safe for
> cycling and so are the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). Exactly where
> do you live in Florida?
>
> >> Are you living in a home for the old?
>
> Not yet, but I'm expecting.
I hope they don't give a computer.
Forrest Hodge
You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.
Forrest Hodge
backyard philosopher wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:47 am, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<UOOdnVKmpM7V3m_RnZ2dnUVZ_qidn...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<HISdnWrnh6pWCnXRnZ2dnUVZ_jSdn...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. That's quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like 0.3%
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total bullshit..
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
>>>>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all color
>>>>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>>
>>>>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
>>>>>>>> of electricity.
>>
>>>>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
>>>>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>>
>>>>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>>
>>>>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
>>>>>> http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>>
>>>>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
>>>>> university.
>>
>>>> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>>
>>> Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>>
>>>> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
>>>> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>>
>>> It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
>>> ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>>
>>>> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>>
>>> Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>>
>> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
>> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
>> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
>> Operated by the University of California"?
>>
>>> It is part
>>> of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
>>> It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
>>> is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
>>> Berkeley University.
>>
>> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
>> California.
>>
>>> It does not speak for the DOE
>>
>> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>>
>> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>>
>> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
>> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>>
>> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
>> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>>
>> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
>> to the correct conclusion.
>>
>> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
>> are incorrect.
>
> These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
> want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
> car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
> survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
>
I'm a conservative who is a firm believer in science and doesn't
regularly attend any religious services, what do you make of that? I do
think it's kinda hypocritical that someone who is apparently a firm
believer in science would have such a big problem with SUV vs. Bicycles.
It's Darwinism in action. If the bicyclist cannot adapt, then then
he/she is destined for extinction. Or is there someone unnatural about
the law of the jungle?
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
The SUV will become extinct, since it can not adapt to a world where
human overpopulation and over-consumption are rapidly depleting natural
resources and damaging the ecosystem.
100 years from now, the human population will almost certainly be
between 0 and 100 million.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
Yeah, you forget the other side of the equation: BIG FISH EATS LITTLE
FISH, but the LITTLE FISH ORGANIZED would lead to a balance or perhaps
to making the predator redundant when we can all live in abundance.
Monkeys always fought lions, and finally beat them.
Otherwise we get these Darwinist roads where you can't even use your
400 hp muscle car that any big SUV can flatten.
But the predator is not very smart, just powerful. You must be content
to admire your own muscle without using it. Go to the Autobahn instead!
Forrest Hodge
flattening the muscle car, I suppose it could happen, and indeed in
where I live the SUV and Pickup truck rule, but I don't have any ill
will towards those who choose to use a Tahoe or Excursion as their daily
driver, it's their choice.
In the interest of disclosure, I also have a full sized SUV of my
own. Though I don't drive it much since it has over 250k on the clock,
and the Mustang is much more fun to drive anyway. These days the Bronco
is limited to PWC towing duty, and getting around when it snows. It's an
appliance more or less,. I may end up replacing with with an F-150 at
some point, but it has been quite reliable, the only major repair was a
transmission rebuild, other than that it's served me well, and done
everything I've ever asked of it.
The Autobahn is overrated, traffic is terrible on most parts of it,
you're lucky if you can even briefly hit triple digit speeds.
Forrest Hodge
Forrest Hodge
Correct. I would chose not to use it even if were available due to the
convenience factor, the fact that isn't available where I live just
makes the decision that much easier. Compared to rest of the western
world public transportation in the U.S. is a joke. If it were as
widespread and efficient as it is in Japan for example, then I might
have a different opinion.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
I get it. The problem is the lack of choices in America. I agree.
It may get solved in the next 100 years though. Maybe we end the world
before.
Edward Dolan
> On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° > wrote:
Forrest Hodge wrote:
>>> You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
>>> are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
>>> mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
>>> that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
>>> For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
>>> not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
>>> public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.
>>
>> If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".
>>
> How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?
Forrest, when you talk to TM, you are talking to the village simpleton. If
you continue to do it, you will discover that salient fact. He has shit for
brains and has hardly ever said anything that makes any sense. In short, he
is a blithering idiot.
Tom Sherman is a man of few words these days. He mainly likes to poke at
people. He is an elitist and thinks folks like you and me are stupid.
I hate motor vehicles myself, but that is where we are at as a society for
the moment. The future will be far different if things keep going the way
they are going. The US is well on its way to becoming a lot like Europe.
When we become as crowded and have a public transit system like they have,
who wouldn't use it to the fullest. The private motor vehicle will go the
way of the Dodo Bird and it will be good riddance. However, at present what
choice do we have.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> "Forrest Hodge" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:id9e82$9md$2...@news.eternal-september.org...> On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, T m Sherm n _ > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Forrest Hodge wrote:
> >>> You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
> >>> are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
> >>> mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
> >>> that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
> >>> For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
> >>> not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
> >>> public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.
>
> >> If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".
>
> > How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?
>
> Forrest, when you talk to TM, you are talking to the village simpleton. If
> you continue to do it, you will discover that salient fact. He has shit for
> brains and has hardly ever said anything that makes any sense. In short, he
> is a blithering idiot.
You are the best in the circus...
http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/evil-clown-costume.jpg
A clown in old age is twice as sad.
Opus
>snip<
> How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?
geez, you want a list?
In the DFW Metroplex 1/3 of all air pollution comes from private motor
vehicle exhaust, a little less than 1/3 comes from other mobile
sources, and a little less than 1/3 comes from stationary industrial
sources. About 2% comes from natural sources that would not be a
problem without the anthropogenic sources. Even as we lower the amount
of pollution in the air we chase a moving target because it has been
discovered the damage caused to people by chronic exposure to
pollution gets worse even as the levels of pollution go down. Even as
smoking rates plummet lung disease of all kinds continues to get worse
as a result of pollution. And that doesn't even include the damage to
water supplies from finding and refining fossil fuels, the damage to
the soil from refining fossil fuels, the damage to groundwater
supplies from runoff from paved roads, the loss of CO2 sinks from
covering soil with paving, the conversion of farmland to housing
because providing parking for our cars takes up so much space that we
have to move into the country to find space to build.
How's that for starters? And keep in mind I'm saying this as a former
member of the SCCA and ISCA, I used to race sports cars and build
customs. I LIKE cars and I'm saying this.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
The late Paul Newman was into both RACING CARS and ENVIRONMENTALISM...
What they are basically proposing --his daughter too-- is that we use
more alternative transportation --public transportation or bicycles--
and leave the driving for Sundays or something.
I say this much, BUY LOCALLY BIKE LOCALLY to build COMMUNITY --not
Gated Community. ;)
Forrest Hodge
I would think that with the much lower prevailing speeds and far more
traffic lights and such that riding the in the city would lend itself to
bike riding better. The difference in speeds between cars and bikes
isn't as much, and you usually can't go more than a 1/4 mile without
hitting red light.
"Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas."
I also have 1974 Triumph TR6, a proper roadster. The Miata is just a
knock off, sure it's a nice car to drive, but it has none of the soul
and personality of the real deal. For what it's worth, the TR6 gets
about the same mileage as the 400 HP Mustang. Naturally, given the
questionable reliability of the Triumph, it's only driven in the spring
and summer, never at night, and never more than 20 miles or so from
home. It's more of a hobby than a car if I'm honest.
Edward Dolan
> On 12/2/2010 10:23 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
> backyard philosopher wrote:
> "The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
> monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?"
>
> I would think that with the much lower prevailing speeds and far more
> traffic lights and such that riding the in the city would lend itself to
> bike riding better. The difference in speeds between cars and bikes isn't
> as much, and you usually can't go more than a 1/4 mile without hitting red
> light.
Forrest, you are talking to one of this world's supreme idiots. However, he
is not a normal idiot, he is a blithering idiot. He has got shit for brains
and I am beginning to wonder what you have in your head too.
TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the roads.
His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to this
poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.
He likes to reference monkeys and other wild animals normally found only in
zoos because he is most likely a wild beast himself. I think he fornicates
with monkeys, but I can't prove it.
TM should confine himself to just one thread instead of proliferating them
like a poor crazy bastard. He is insane of course. I liken him to the
village idiot of olden times. The difference these days is that no one any
longer recognizes the village idiot because idiocy has become so widespread.
But I will be here to remind one and all of what a poor crazy bastard TM is.
It is a mark of My Greatness that I can still recognize the village idiot
even if the rest of you can't.