Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 21, 2013, 1:47:18 PM2/21/13
to
Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.
FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
Styrofoam without burning your hands.
FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
my hero.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Martin Edwards
Feb 22, 2013, 6:42:01 AM2/22/13
to
On 21/02/2013 18:47, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
> Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
> SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
> Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
> for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
> actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
>
> I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
> Styrofoam without burning your hands.
>
> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
> my hero.
>
>
We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
> Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
> SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
> Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
> for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
> actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
>
> I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
> Styrofoam without burning your hands.
>
> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
> my hero.
>
>
male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
truck for bullying other traffic.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is wh at we
must painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman
spud-u-d...@potato.field
Feb 22, 2013, 6:51:45 AM2/22/13
to
On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 11:42:01 +0000
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/02/2013 18:47, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
>> my hero.
>>
>>
>
>We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
>male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
>truck for bullying other traffic.
Odd then that most of the them are driven by women on their way to the
Martin Edwards <big_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21/02/2013 18:47, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
>> my hero.
>>
>>
>
>We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
>male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
>truck for bullying other traffic.
supermarket. For certain men they seem to have replaced sports cars as the mid
life crisis mobile and far from everything thinking they're an alpha male, they
just think they're a bit sad and are probably on viagra.
Spud
John W Gintell
Feb 22, 2013, 10:51:01 AM2/22/13
to
On 2/21/13 1:47 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
> Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
> SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
> Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
> for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
> actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
>
> I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
> Styrofoam without burning your hands.
>
> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
> my hero.
>
Pass two laws:
> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
> Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
> SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
> Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
> for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
> actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
>
> I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
> Styrofoam without burning your hands.
>
> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
> my hero.
>
1) SUVs must be made out of styrofoam (will make them less dangerous when they
crash into other cars so this is a good idea)
2) Ban styrofoam
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Feb 22, 2013, 3:22:46 PM2/22/13
to
On 22/02/2013 11:42, Martin Edwards wrote:
> On 21/02/2013 18:47, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
>> Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
>> SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
>> Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
>> for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
>> actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
>>
>> I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
>> Styrofoam without burning your hands.
>>
>> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
>> my hero.
>>
>>
>
> We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
> male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
> truck for bullying other traffic.
>
>
They're called Chelsea Tractors, here in London.
> On 21/02/2013 18:47, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>> Unless you live in a cage, you know Mayor Bloomberg it out to ban
>> Styrofoam from NYC, and that actually sounds good. The irony is that
>> SUVs do more to tarnish the image of a city and he owns one! People in
>> Europe must be wondering why these Americans need a vehicle designed
>> for the African savannahs in the middle of a city. Are they having an
>> actual fantasy of being at the top of the food chain?
>>
>> I know this is a hot topic and I wonder how you could replace
>> Styrofoam without burning your hands.
>>
>> FYI, Mayor Bloomberg is Jewish. Once he gets rid of the SUVs, he'll be
>> my hero.
>>
>>
>
> We have them in Europe. It is a way of self-identifying as an alpha
> male and, on a purely practical level, it is the next best thing to a
> truck for bullying other traffic.
>
>
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 23, 2013, 2:05:56 PM2/23/13
to
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 23, 2013, 2:48:52 PM2/23/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Feb 23, 10:59 am, bo peep <cowartmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52:14 AM UTC-7, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive wrote:
>
> > How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
>
> A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?
"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.
> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52:14 AM UTC-7, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive wrote:
>
> > How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
>
> A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?
"What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.
Martin Edwards
Feb 24, 2013, 2:24:27 AM2/24/13
to
On 23/02/2013 19:48, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 24, 2013, 12:54:46 PM2/24/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Feb 24, 2:24 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.
> On 23/02/2013 19:48, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach CruiserPhilosopher wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 10:59 am, bo peep <cowartmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52:14 AM UTC-7, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive wrote:
>
> >>> How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
>
> >> A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?
>
> > "What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
>
> > Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
> > idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.
>
> Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.
The killed the winter here in South Florida. But that's OK, we are
> > On Feb 23, 10:59 am, bo peep <cowartmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52:14 AM UTC-7, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive wrote:
>
> >>> How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
>
> >> A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?
>
> > "What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
>
> > Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
> > idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.
>
> Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.
waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 24, 2013, 1:27:10 PM2/24/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Feb 23, 4:28 pm, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:24:52 -0600, x wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:49:38 -0500, i2i wrote:
>
> >> "x" wrote in message
> >>news:ub6dnf_L9JgijLTM...@giganews.com...
>
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:52:19 -0600, x wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:27:29 -0500, i2i wrote:
>
> >>>> "x" wrote in message
> >>>>news:SrWdnaARbIt-BbXM...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:04:10 -0500, i2i wrote:
>
> >>>>> "x" wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1MqdnS2S8fg1jbXM...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:51:05 -0800, His Highness the Wise
> >>>>> TibetanMonkey,
> >>>>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Feb 22, 12:15 am, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:28:49 -0800, Wet Paper Bag wrote:
> >>>>>>> > On Feb 19, 8:32 pm, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> >> that doesn't necessarily mean to spread your thoughts on one
> >>>>>>> >> topic of mostly a local relevance globally but to think outside
> >>>>>>> >> that corner....
>
> >>>>>>> > so then what we do here, most of the time, is zen... what is the
> >>>>>>> > rest of your time spent doing x?
>
> >>>>>>> computer games, a daily program (i live in a psychiatric hostel)
> >>>>>>> which includes a morning walk, smoking. i'm cutting down on food
> >>>>>>> these days..
> >>>>>>> being told i look pregnant was the final straw.
>
> >>>>>>> today i was invited to join the anonymous group.... it looks like
> >>>>>>> fun..+
>
> >>>>>> Sorry, whatever you do, don't be anonymous. Be the black sheep.
> >>>>>> That's my motto anyway.
>
> >>>>>> Smoking doesn't make sense though. Think about it and quit today.
>
> >>>>>>they say "fuck the new world order". i don't, and if i were a member
> >>>>>>i would have to change their mind by creating a conflict within.
>
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlfYHAV1i8w
>
> >>>>>cheers...wish i had less of a download limit so i could watch it all.
>
> >>>>>what do you think about 2012, 2013 and where we're headed?
>
> >>>> considering that just a few short years ago there weren't even places
> >>>> like this where spiritual concerns could be discussed it can only
> >>>> evolve into something beneficial eventually.
>
> >>> i believe hackers are sort of saving the world by sparing it...does
> >>> that make sense? it amazes me they haven't done worse. or are we that
> >>> stupid..
>
> >>> nah.. it amazes me there aren't more assassinations and school
> >>> shootings.
>
> >>> it is like there is something good in everyone fear is still there
> >>> though. it sort of makes the times we do cause havoc forgivable....
>
> >> government feeds fear but even they are only victims of it themselves.
>
> >> it is a tactic to win votes though. there's a problem and we'll fix it
> >> for you if you vote for us.. american politics is really based on fear.
>
> >> ==============\\
>
> >> the government , the media , the oligarchy and the entire industrial
> >> military complex is based on fear. a society without fear wouldn't need
> >> much of a government or military.
>
> >> advertisements are the worst when it comes to true information. if you
> >> don't have super white teeth you better be deathly afraid.
>
> > do you think the government really knows what it's doing?
>
> > i think they do partly but they are sometimes just afraid themselves.
>
> they REALLY are afraid and they really do think they are important.
>
> but i know in america there is a lot of real corruption mixed in there.
>
> (sorry!)
In America you are a CONSUMER --or nothing at all.
Walking and bicycling are free so they are way down in the list of
priority. The "bike facilities" that are accomplished are meant to
feed the corruption, not make it easier for the cyclist.
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:24:52 -0600, x wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:49:38 -0500, i2i wrote:
>
> >> "x" wrote in message
> >>news:ub6dnf_L9JgijLTM...@giganews.com...
>
> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:52:19 -0600, x wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 13:27:29 -0500, i2i wrote:
>
> >>>> "x" wrote in message
> >>>>news:SrWdnaARbIt-BbXM...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>> On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:04:10 -0500, i2i wrote:
>
> >>>>> "x" wrote in message
> >>>>>news:1MqdnS2S8fg1jbXM...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 09:51:05 -0800, His Highness the Wise
> >>>>> TibetanMonkey,
> >>>>> Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Feb 22, 12:15 am, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:28:49 -0800, Wet Paper Bag wrote:
> >>>>>>> > On Feb 19, 8:32 pm, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> >> that doesn't necessarily mean to spread your thoughts on one
> >>>>>>> >> topic of mostly a local relevance globally but to think outside
> >>>>>>> >> that corner....
>
> >>>>>>> > so then what we do here, most of the time, is zen... what is the
> >>>>>>> > rest of your time spent doing x?
>
> >>>>>>> computer games, a daily program (i live in a psychiatric hostel)
> >>>>>>> which includes a morning walk, smoking. i'm cutting down on food
> >>>>>>> these days..
> >>>>>>> being told i look pregnant was the final straw.
>
> >>>>>>> today i was invited to join the anonymous group.... it looks like
> >>>>>>> fun..+
>
> >>>>>> Sorry, whatever you do, don't be anonymous. Be the black sheep.
> >>>>>> That's my motto anyway.
>
> >>>>>> Smoking doesn't make sense though. Think about it and quit today.
>
> >>>>>>they say "fuck the new world order". i don't, and if i were a member
> >>>>>>i would have to change their mind by creating a conflict within.
>
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlfYHAV1i8w
>
> >>>>>cheers...wish i had less of a download limit so i could watch it all.
>
> >>>>>what do you think about 2012, 2013 and where we're headed?
>
> >>>> considering that just a few short years ago there weren't even places
> >>>> like this where spiritual concerns could be discussed it can only
> >>>> evolve into something beneficial eventually.
>
> >>> i believe hackers are sort of saving the world by sparing it...does
> >>> that make sense? it amazes me they haven't done worse. or are we that
> >>> stupid..
>
> >>> nah.. it amazes me there aren't more assassinations and school
> >>> shootings.
>
> >>> it is like there is something good in everyone fear is still there
> >>> though. it sort of makes the times we do cause havoc forgivable....
>
> >> government feeds fear but even they are only victims of it themselves.
>
> >> it is a tactic to win votes though. there's a problem and we'll fix it
> >> for you if you vote for us.. american politics is really based on fear.
>
> >> ==============\\
>
> >> the government , the media , the oligarchy and the entire industrial
> >> military complex is based on fear. a society without fear wouldn't need
> >> much of a government or military.
>
> >> advertisements are the worst when it comes to true information. if you
> >> don't have super white teeth you better be deathly afraid.
>
> > do you think the government really knows what it's doing?
>
> > i think they do partly but they are sometimes just afraid themselves.
>
> they REALLY are afraid and they really do think they are important.
>
> but i know in america there is a lot of real corruption mixed in there.
>
> (sorry!)
In America you are a CONSUMER --or nothing at all.
Walking and bicycling are free so they are way down in the list of
priority. The "bike facilities" that are accomplished are meant to
feed the corruption, not make it easier for the cyclist.
Martin Edwards
Feb 25, 2013, 5:57:55 AM2/25/13
to
On 24/02/2013 17:54, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
Brace yourself for the anti-gay posts.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 25, 2013, 12:18:00 PM2/25/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Feb 25, 5:57 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 24/02/2013 17:54, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2:24 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 23/02/2013 19:48, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach CruiserPhilosopher wrote:
> >>> On Feb 23, 10:59 am, bo peep <cowartmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52:14 AM UTC-7, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive wrote:
>
> >>>>> How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
>
> >>>> A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?
>
> >>> "What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
>
> >>> Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
> >>> idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.
>
> >> Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.
>
> > The killed the winter here in South Florida. But that's OK, we are
> > waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.
>
> Brace yourself for the anti-gay posts.
All I got to do is move to higher ground, right? ;)
> On 24/02/2013 17:54, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 2:24 am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 23/02/2013 19:48, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach CruiserPhilosopher wrote:
> >>> On Feb 23, 10:59 am, bo peep <cowartmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, February 21, 2013 11:52:14 AM UTC-7, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive wrote:
>
> >>>>> How can we keep Styrofoam and SUVs out of our cities?
>
> >>>> A more important question: how can we keep slow moving bicyles from clogging up our roads and impeding the smooth flow of traffic?
>
> >>> "What counts is not the flow of traffic but the flow of life"
>
> >>> Count that one among my famous quotations. Should I push around the
> >>> idiotic pedestrians because they are slower? I don't think so.
>
> >> Springtime, the acacias are blooming. Well, not yet, but chin up.
>
> > The killed the winter here in South Florida. But that's OK, we are
> > waiting for a killer hurricane to wipe out the whole area.
>
> Brace yourself for the anti-gay posts.
On Feb 24, 12:58 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Laws or no laws, "stupid"ity is generally a "fault".
Stupidity is to set a law ("it's the law!) that gives 3 feet clearance
to cyclists...
How the fuck you enforce that?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 25, 2013, 12:48:12 PM2/25/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Feb 25, 12:34 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:20:28 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 12:14 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know I shouldn't be encouraging this stuff here, but one question does leap to mind: just how do you define "SUV"?
>
> > > Bob M.
>
> > Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles.
>
> > Mercedes, BMWs, Acuras, Kias, Jeep Liberty (original) and Ford Ranger
> > are safe. The last two are gone because they weren't big enough.
>
> I didn't ask for a clever (at least in your mind) explanation of
> the abbreviation; I asked for a *definition*. And you've provided
> something that shows precisely the point I wanted to make: just who
> gets to decide what is "supersized" and/or "unnecessary"? Is size
> really your concern, or should this be judged on environmental impact
> (which would be an entirely new can of worms)? Since you've brought
> "necessity" into the discussion, shall we assume that any vehicle is
> OK by you if a "need" can be demonstrated for it? (You're going to
> find this hard to believe, I know, but there are people who actually
> need the size/carrying capacity/whatever of a truck/SUV or similar
> vehicle. By the way, not that this is in any way relevant, but I'm
> not one of those people; the largest vehicle with more than 2 wheels
> that I normally operate is a Toyota Corolla.)
The clever abbreviation is also the definition. In Europe they deal
with it through HIGHER GAS TAXES. If they have SUVs they are usually
smaller. On top of that we should require a TRUCK LICENSE since they
can cause catastrophic damage to regular cars. We have a situation
where drivers drive them while on the phone or tending the kids. Think
about it and you'll see how dangerous that can be, particularly to
cyclists and motorcyclists.
On the other hand we got nothing but the scraps:
On Feb 25, 9:54 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:43 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:05 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 6:48 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ... do you mean that bicycles
> > > > are entitled to unrestricted use of the road? Can ride without
> > > > consideration for any others that might be using the same facility?
>
> > > I don't think anyone argues for that. At least, not anyone I've
> > > encountered.
>
> > > I think a reasonable approach would be for bicycles to be covered by
> > > the same rules as other vehicles. Perhaps some modification might be
> > > made if it were necessary to permit lane sharing IF the lane is wide
> > > enough to safely share. Beyond that, it's probably best to do away
> > > with most bike-specific laws.
>
> > > Here's an example: Many U.S. states have provisions requiring
> > > cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable" (not
> > > "possible"), often with non-exhaustive lists of exceptions (for
> > > safety, etc.). But if a road is empty of other traffic, that makes no
> > > sense. When I ride down my own residential street, and no other
> > > traffic is present, why should I have an obligation to ride (say) two
> > > or three feet from the edge? In fact, why should I even have to
> > > consider such a law when I'm doing 25 mph in a 25 mph zone, or
> > > otherwise moving at normal traffic speed?
>
> > Didn't we discuss this already? What makes you think you have any
> > obligation to ride far right if there is no other traffic or you're
> > riding at the speed of traffic? Some weird abstract notion that
> > citizenship is adherence to spec? (Maybe scofflaws don't have it all
> > wrong after all (?)
>
> Yes, we have discussed this . . . many times. For us Oregonians:
Oregonians are weird. Many people take bicycling seriously there. We
think it's a joke or a sport better kept to special places.
>
> ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes (1) A person commits the offense of
> improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a
> bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using
> the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and
> the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or
> edge of the roadway.
>
> If there is no traffic, you can ride in the middle of the road.
Wait a minute, in a free society you can ride wherever you want. We
are not bound by bike lanes as in socialist Europe. ;)
>
> > > I believe what's really intended is for cyclists to not unnecessarily
> > > restrict traffic flow - although that's unfortunately modified by our
> > > society's false belief that a bicyclist really doesn't have as much
> > > right to the road as a motorist.
>
> > So you would leave it to each and every individual *how* to go about
> > sharing the road?
>
> > > But legally, we probably have more right to the road, since we don't
> > > have to get a license for permission to use the road.
>
> We have whatever right to use the road that our legislatures see fit
> to give us.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Yeas, our masters gracefully give us the scraps --if any.
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:20:28 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > On Feb 25, 12:14 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I know I shouldn't be encouraging this stuff here, but one question does leap to mind: just how do you define "SUV"?
>
> > > Bob M.
>
> > Supersized Unnecessary Vehicles.
>
> > Mercedes, BMWs, Acuras, Kias, Jeep Liberty (original) and Ford Ranger
> > are safe. The last two are gone because they weren't big enough.
>
> I didn't ask for a clever (at least in your mind) explanation of
> the abbreviation; I asked for a *definition*. And you've provided
> something that shows precisely the point I wanted to make: just who
> gets to decide what is "supersized" and/or "unnecessary"? Is size
> really your concern, or should this be judged on environmental impact
> (which would be an entirely new can of worms)? Since you've brought
> "necessity" into the discussion, shall we assume that any vehicle is
> OK by you if a "need" can be demonstrated for it? (You're going to
> find this hard to believe, I know, but there are people who actually
> need the size/carrying capacity/whatever of a truck/SUV or similar
> vehicle. By the way, not that this is in any way relevant, but I'm
> not one of those people; the largest vehicle with more than 2 wheels
> that I normally operate is a Toyota Corolla.)
The clever abbreviation is also the definition. In Europe they deal
with it through HIGHER GAS TAXES. If they have SUVs they are usually
smaller. On top of that we should require a TRUCK LICENSE since they
can cause catastrophic damage to regular cars. We have a situation
where drivers drive them while on the phone or tending the kids. Think
about it and you'll see how dangerous that can be, particularly to
cyclists and motorcyclists.
On the other hand we got nothing but the scraps:
On Feb 25, 9:54 am, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:43 pm, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 8:05 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 24, 6:48 pm, John B. <johnbsloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ... do you mean that bicycles
> > > > are entitled to unrestricted use of the road? Can ride without
> > > > consideration for any others that might be using the same facility?
>
> > > I don't think anyone argues for that. At least, not anyone I've
> > > encountered.
>
> > > I think a reasonable approach would be for bicycles to be covered by
> > > the same rules as other vehicles. Perhaps some modification might be
> > > made if it were necessary to permit lane sharing IF the lane is wide
> > > enough to safely share. Beyond that, it's probably best to do away
> > > with most bike-specific laws.
>
> > > Here's an example: Many U.S. states have provisions requiring
> > > cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable" (not
> > > "possible"), often with non-exhaustive lists of exceptions (for
> > > safety, etc.). But if a road is empty of other traffic, that makes no
> > > sense. When I ride down my own residential street, and no other
> > > traffic is present, why should I have an obligation to ride (say) two
> > > or three feet from the edge? In fact, why should I even have to
> > > consider such a law when I'm doing 25 mph in a 25 mph zone, or
> > > otherwise moving at normal traffic speed?
>
> > Didn't we discuss this already? What makes you think you have any
> > obligation to ride far right if there is no other traffic or you're
> > riding at the speed of traffic? Some weird abstract notion that
> > citizenship is adherence to spec? (Maybe scofflaws don't have it all
> > wrong after all (?)
>
> Yes, we have discussed this . . . many times. For us Oregonians:
Oregonians are weird. Many people take bicycling seriously there. We
think it's a joke or a sport better kept to special places.
>
> ORS 814.430 Improper use of lanes (1) A person commits the offense of
> improper use of lanes by a bicycle if the person is operating a
> bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic using
> the roadway at that time and place under the existing conditions and
> the person does not ride as close as practicable to the right curb or
> edge of the roadway.
>
> If there is no traffic, you can ride in the middle of the road.
Wait a minute, in a free society you can ride wherever you want. We
are not bound by bike lanes as in socialist Europe. ;)
>
> > > I believe what's really intended is for cyclists to not unnecessarily
> > > restrict traffic flow - although that's unfortunately modified by our
> > > society's false belief that a bicyclist really doesn't have as much
> > > right to the road as a motorist.
>
> > So you would leave it to each and every individual *how* to go about
> > sharing the road?
>
> > > But legally, we probably have more right to the road, since we don't
> > > have to get a license for permission to use the road.
>
> We have whatever right to use the road that our legislatures see fit
> to give us.
>
> -- Jay Beattie.
Yeas, our masters gracefully give us the scraps --if any.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 26, 2013, 12:43:46 PM2/26/13
to
On Feb 26, 6:34 am, tomorrow <s4rsri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:29 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
> Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't see the engineers giving a damn about the actual consequences
> > of those stupid signs. Around here we got signs that say "Walk bike
> > across bridge." But nobody is sure what they mean. One driver thought
> > I shouldn't be on the bridge and the argument ended in him spitting in
> > my face and taking off.
>
> Just the mental image of you taking the time to argue with someone in
> a motorized vehicle about whether you should be on a bridge, and the
> thought of the car driver actually taking the time to "discuss" the
> issue with you (let alone it ending with the driver spitting in your
> face) when both of you could have simply and civilly been on your way
> with little or no time wasted, and no emotional drama..... kinda
> funny.
And it's kind of funny the "good Samaritan" was trying to enforce this
"walk bike across bridge" ordinance and he didn't have a fucking clue
what it meant. I was riding lawfully on the road. I asked a cop two
years later and he told me it meant not to ride the bike on the
sidewalk. I understand engineers don't give a shit about cyclist and
pedestrian safety, but at least they could write common sense signs.
> On Feb 25, 7:29 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
> Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't see the engineers giving a damn about the actual consequences
> > of those stupid signs. Around here we got signs that say "Walk bike
> > across bridge." But nobody is sure what they mean. One driver thought
> > I shouldn't be on the bridge and the argument ended in him spitting in
> > my face and taking off.
>
> Just the mental image of you taking the time to argue with someone in
> a motorized vehicle about whether you should be on a bridge, and the
> thought of the car driver actually taking the time to "discuss" the
> issue with you (let alone it ending with the driver spitting in your
> face) when both of you could have simply and civilly been on your way
> with little or no time wasted, and no emotional drama..... kinda
> funny.
And it's kind of funny the "good Samaritan" was trying to enforce this
"walk bike across bridge" ordinance and he didn't have a fucking clue
what it meant. I was riding lawfully on the road. I asked a cop two
years later and he told me it meant not to ride the bike on the
sidewalk. I understand engineers don't give a shit about cyclist and
pedestrian safety, but at least they could write common sense signs.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 26, 2013, 12:54:44 PM2/26/13
to
On Feb 26, 12:44 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bob M.
Just because:
1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
sleeping humans.”
We’ve reached a horribly ironic tipping point. Since the beginning of
our species, our tools have made humanity more efficient at virtually
every job we do. But now, they’ve come to collect on their debt.'
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671962/bad-news-global-warming-is-smothering-our-productivity
***
I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
not an acceptable way to do it.
> On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > > > I know I shouldn't be encouraging this stuff here, but one question does leap to mind: just how do you define "SUV"?
>
> > > > > I know I shouldn't be encouraging this stuff here, but one question does leap to mind: just how do you define "SUV"?
>
> > > I didn't ask for a clever (at least in your mind) explanation of
>
> > > the abbreviation; I asked for a *definition*.
>
>
> > > the abbreviation; I asked for a *definition*.
>
> > The clever abbreviation is also the definition.
>
> Sorry, but no, it's definitely not. It's certainly nothing you could write a law around. So try again - if you're going to proposed somehow banning/regulating/whatever "SUVs," you damned well had better be able to describe just what you're talking about. So what IS it? Are you going to define the category based on gross vehicle weight, size, displacement, gas mileage - WHAT? And more importantly, WHY (for each delineation).
>
>
> Bob M.
Just because:
1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
sleeping humans.”
We’ve reached a horribly ironic tipping point. Since the beginning of
our species, our tools have made humanity more efficient at virtually
every job we do. But now, they’ve come to collect on their debt.'
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671962/bad-news-global-warming-is-smothering-our-productivity
***
I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
not an acceptable way to do it.
TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Feb 26, 2013, 1:33:59 PM2/26/13
to
On Feb 26, 1:00 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "they" you are talking about. Until you do that, you're just taking the
> lazy way out - complaining about something but offering no real, practical
> solution for your perceived problem.
still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the
garage.
Tell you what, we can set the curb weight as follows:
CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law
of the land.
Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need
something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 12:54:12 PM UTC-5, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just because:
>
> > 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
>
> > 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
>
> And you STILL haven't offered any clear-cut definition as to just what
>
>
>
> > Just because:
>
> > 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
>
> > 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
>
> "they" you are talking about. Until you do that, you're just taking the
> lazy way out - complaining about something but offering no real, practical
> solution for your perceived problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
>
> > 'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
>
> > to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
>
> > Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
>
> > sleeping humans.”
>
> > We’ve reached a horribly ironic tipping point. Since the beginning of
>
> > our species, our tools have made humanity more efficient at virtually
>
> > every job we do. But now, they’ve come to collect on their debt.'
>
> >http://www.fastcodesign.com/1671962/bad-news-global-warming-is-smothe...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
>
> > 'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
>
> > to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
>
> > Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
>
> > sleeping humans.”
>
> > We’ve reached a horribly ironic tipping point. Since the beginning of
>
> > our species, our tools have made humanity more efficient at virtually
>
> > every job we do. But now, they’ve come to collect on their debt.'
>
>
> > ***
>
> > I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
>
> > not an acceptable way to do it.
We can set a limit on weight and bumper height. Of course, you may
> > ***
>
> > I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
>
> > not an acceptable way to do it.
still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the
garage.
Tell you what, we can set the curb weight as follows:
CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law
of the land.
Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need
something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Feb 28, 2013, 3:22:47 PM2/28/13
to
On Feb 27, 9:32 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 9:01 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 5:22 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 8:45 am, Duane Hébert <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 02/25/2013 10:25 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > > > > Different words, same meaning, in my opinion.
>
> > > > Right but you probably don't have an agenda.
>
> > > Oh come on, Duane. The difference is obvious in the situation when
> > > the cyclist is _not_ slower; yet many states mandate that the cyclist
> > > still ride "as far right as practicable." That difference should not
> > > be hard to understand.
>
> > > I do have an agenda, of course. It's protecting the rights of
> > > cyclists.
>
> > Like I said, "rights" are whatever the legislature gives you. If the
> > local statute prescribe "as far right as practicable" regardless of
> > traffic or just lumps cyclists in with other "slow moving vehicles,"
> > you're screwed. Time to go to the legislature -- as you know. There
> > is no federal constitutional right to ride in the lane -- except maybe
> > if it is a religious observance or you're carrying a gun, which is
> > tantamount to a religion (sorry Andrew). I don't think it is among
> > the natural rights of Man either. It could be one of those forgotten
> > commandments or a mitzvah or something.
>
> Well, some rights exist independent of (or actually, superior to) what
> the legislature gives you. I agree that position in the lane is not
> one of those rights. Still, if the legislature does give the right to
> choose lane position, I think it's worth defending. If they don't, or
> if they impose too many restrictions, I think it's worth fighting for
> better rights.
>
> But when I talk about protecting the rights of cyclists, they need
> protection from groups that would give them all away. An example
> would be a bike advocacy group that endorses a mandatory helmet law;
> they'd give away the right to choosing one's headwear, or lack of
> same. Another group would be an advocacy group that is so enamored of
> bike lanes that it accepts mandatory bike lane usage in order to get
> more bike lanes. And I fear we have some here who think it's fine to
> restrict cyclists to the rightmost three feet of roadway, no matter
> what.
>
> We have enough enemies. We need to watch our "friends" very closely.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
It sounds like "All vehicles are equal, but some are better than
others."
It reminds me of "All men are created equal..." but slavery went on
for another century, and discrimination for two centuries. Something
funny with that definition of "vehicle."
> On Feb 27, 9:01 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 5:22 pm, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 8:45 am, Duane Hébert <duane.heb...@group-upc.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 02/25/2013 10:25 PM, Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > > > > On 02-24-2013 23:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > >> Many U.S. states have provisions requiring
> > > > >> cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable" (not
> > > > > "Slower moving vehicles, keep right"
> > > > > On 02-24-2013 23:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > > >> Many U.S. states have provisions requiring
> > > > >> cyclists to ride "as far to the right as practicable" (not
>
> > > > > Different words, same meaning, in my opinion.
>
> > > > Right but you probably don't have an agenda.
>
> > > Oh come on, Duane. The difference is obvious in the situation when
> > > the cyclist is _not_ slower; yet many states mandate that the cyclist
> > > still ride "as far right as practicable." That difference should not
> > > be hard to understand.
>
> > > I do have an agenda, of course. It's protecting the rights of
> > > cyclists.
>
> > Like I said, "rights" are whatever the legislature gives you. If the
> > local statute prescribe "as far right as practicable" regardless of
> > traffic or just lumps cyclists in with other "slow moving vehicles,"
> > you're screwed. Time to go to the legislature -- as you know. There
> > is no federal constitutional right to ride in the lane -- except maybe
> > if it is a religious observance or you're carrying a gun, which is
> > tantamount to a religion (sorry Andrew). I don't think it is among
> > the natural rights of Man either. It could be one of those forgotten
> > commandments or a mitzvah or something.
>
> Well, some rights exist independent of (or actually, superior to) what
> the legislature gives you. I agree that position in the lane is not
> one of those rights. Still, if the legislature does give the right to
> choose lane position, I think it's worth defending. If they don't, or
> if they impose too many restrictions, I think it's worth fighting for
> better rights.
>
> But when I talk about protecting the rights of cyclists, they need
> protection from groups that would give them all away. An example
> would be a bike advocacy group that endorses a mandatory helmet law;
> they'd give away the right to choosing one's headwear, or lack of
> same. Another group would be an advocacy group that is so enamored of
> bike lanes that it accepts mandatory bike lane usage in order to get
> more bike lanes. And I fear we have some here who think it's fine to
> restrict cyclists to the rightmost three feet of roadway, no matter
> what.
>
> We have enough enemies. We need to watch our "friends" very closely.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
It sounds like "All vehicles are equal, but some are better than
others."
It reminds me of "All men are created equal..." but slavery went on
for another century, and discrimination for two centuries. Something
funny with that definition of "vehicle."
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Feb 28, 2013, 3:29:24 PM2/28/13
to
On Feb 28, 7:57 am, tomorrow <s4rsri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2:22 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2:16 pm, tomorrow <s4rsri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > > cab longbed pickup truck which has been operated legally and without
> > > accident for 14 years and over 140,000 miles, hauling motorcycles and
> > > towing trailers and moving children to their new apartments and
> > > bringing home beds and taking bicycles to the beach and to the
> > > mountains.
>
> > > Please explain how that fits in with your concept of global harmony
> > > and peaceful coexistence, and tell me what vehicle you are going to
> > > buy for me to replace my beloved and useful hauling device.
>
> > > You should do this before my 800+ pound Street Glide accidently bunts
> > > you and your bicycle off the bridge and into the icy drink below.
>
> > Hey, no need to unleash that gorilla...
>
> > You may keep the truck
>
> So, it's not the truck, or the size, or the weight, or the handling of
> the vehicle that concerns you. So, your railing mightily against
> "SUVs" is just a smokescreen. Got it.
>
> > provided you acquire a proper commercial
> > license to drive it.
>
> My truck does not require a commercial license to drive it.
> Considering that I have been licensed to drive for 40 years and have
> never had an accident while driving a pick-up truck, I fail to see any
> merit in your demand.
>
> > Think of all the idiots --soccer moms if you
> > will-- that terrorize our roads.
>
> I don't just think about them - "soccer mom" or not - I deal with them
> on a daily basis. It doesn;t make a bit of difference whether they
> are driving an SUV or not. If they drive like an idiot in my
> vicinity, they are a problem that I have to deal with.
>
> > They will have to observe LANE DISCIPLINE and other nice things that
> > are considered good road manners.
>
> But all those things are already addressed by current law, and the
> infractions against those laws (and against good driving manners) are
> by no means limited to those who drive SUVs. Or even to those who
> drive motorized vehicles.
>
> > No phone, of course.
>
> Laws addressing phone use in cars are already on the books, and the
> infractions against those laws are by no means limited to those who
> drive SUVs. Or even to those who drive motorized vehicles.
>
> Clearly, what you would like to see is good drivers on the roads,
> driving competently and politely. So would I. The difference
> between us is that I know that the lack of such has NOTHING to do with
> the vehicles on the road and EVERYTHING to do with the PEOPLE on the
> road.
So you plan on driving those stupid vehicles until the end of times?
How about when they get into accident? You know, accidents do happen.
Are you aware that you are unleashing an arms race where everyone must
be big to survive an accident?
Sorry, philosophers must question everything. Going with the flow is
not an option. We do need fewer drivers, better drivers, smaller cars.
But that's only my humble opinion. People would be terrorized to drive
a friendly Neighborhood Electric Vehicle around here, let alone a
beach cruiser.
> On Feb 26, 2:22 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 2:16 pm, tomorrow <s4rsri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 26, 1:30 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> > > <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We can set a limit on weight and bumper height. Of course, you may
> > > > still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the
> > > > garage.
>
> > > > Tell you what, we can set the curb weight as follows:
>
> > > > CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law
> > > > of the land.
>
> > > > Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need
> > > > something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.
>
> > > Your "definition" would outlaw my 1999 GMC Sierra 1500 2wd standard
> > > <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > We can set a limit on weight and bumper height. Of course, you may
> > > > still buy a bigger one and use it strictly off road --or keep in the
> > > > garage.
>
> > > > Tell you what, we can set the curb weight as follows:
>
> > > > CURB WEIGHT 2002 JEEP LIBERTY... 3648 lbs. And that shall be the law
> > > > of the land.
>
> > > > Compare that to the curb weight of a Hummer: 6614 lbs. If you need
> > > > something bigger than a Jeep Liberty go to Russia.
>
> > > cab longbed pickup truck which has been operated legally and without
> > > accident for 14 years and over 140,000 miles, hauling motorcycles and
> > > towing trailers and moving children to their new apartments and
> > > bringing home beds and taking bicycles to the beach and to the
> > > mountains.
>
> > > Please explain how that fits in with your concept of global harmony
> > > and peaceful coexistence, and tell me what vehicle you are going to
> > > buy for me to replace my beloved and useful hauling device.
>
> > > You should do this before my 800+ pound Street Glide accidently bunts
> > > you and your bicycle off the bridge and into the icy drink below.
>
> > Hey, no need to unleash that gorilla...
>
> > You may keep the truck
>
> So, it's not the truck, or the size, or the weight, or the handling of
> the vehicle that concerns you. So, your railing mightily against
> "SUVs" is just a smokescreen. Got it.
>
> > provided you acquire a proper commercial
> > license to drive it.
>
> My truck does not require a commercial license to drive it.
> Considering that I have been licensed to drive for 40 years and have
> never had an accident while driving a pick-up truck, I fail to see any
> merit in your demand.
>
> > Think of all the idiots --soccer moms if you
> > will-- that terrorize our roads.
>
> I don't just think about them - "soccer mom" or not - I deal with them
> on a daily basis. It doesn;t make a bit of difference whether they
> are driving an SUV or not. If they drive like an idiot in my
> vicinity, they are a problem that I have to deal with.
>
> > They will have to observe LANE DISCIPLINE and other nice things that
> > are considered good road manners.
>
> But all those things are already addressed by current law, and the
> infractions against those laws (and against good driving manners) are
> by no means limited to those who drive SUVs. Or even to those who
> drive motorized vehicles.
>
> > No phone, of course.
>
> Laws addressing phone use in cars are already on the books, and the
> infractions against those laws are by no means limited to those who
> drive SUVs. Or even to those who drive motorized vehicles.
>
> Clearly, what you would like to see is good drivers on the roads,
> driving competently and politely. So would I. The difference
> between us is that I know that the lack of such has NOTHING to do with
> the vehicles on the road and EVERYTHING to do with the PEOPLE on the
> road.
So you plan on driving those stupid vehicles until the end of times?
How about when they get into accident? You know, accidents do happen.
Are you aware that you are unleashing an arms race where everyone must
be big to survive an accident?
Sorry, philosophers must question everything. Going with the flow is
not an option. We do need fewer drivers, better drivers, smaller cars.
But that's only my humble opinion. People would be terrorized to drive
a friendly Neighborhood Electric Vehicle around here, let alone a
beach cruiser.
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Feb 28, 2013, 4:32:11 PM2/28/13
to
On Feb 28, 3:30 pm, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
> Le 2/28/2013 9:07 PM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
> Philosopher a écrit :
>
> > People don't wear helmets in Holland, perhaps because cycling is
> > thought to be safe.
>
> I lived in Holland for a couple years. The Dutch are lucky in
> several ways. The countryside is completely flat. The government
> has lays bike lanes parallel to motorways physically separate
> from the road (tell that to "big gov't is bad" Wilson)
>
> Another major difference between riding bikes in the US and France,
> and riding bikes in Holland, is that there's never any racing
> on bike lanes in Holland. People cycle at a leisurely pace,
> going shopping, taking care of day to day business. When they
> want to cycle at speed, they ride motorways. Dutch bikes are
> built to ride upright and not crouched, and they usually single
> speed.
I live in a very flat place (Florida) minus the harsh winter and still
don't get to ride a bike without dealing with stupid design and no
less stupid drivers. I may argue that stupid drivers are the result of
stupid design where bike lanes are not even connected. In some places
they just paint a bike (called sharrow) and the Jewish lawyer is ready
to take your business. If you lose a leg and you catch the driver, you
may be in for some big compensation (minus the lawyer fee).
> Le 2/28/2013 9:07 PM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
> Philosopher a écrit :
>
> > People don't wear helmets in Holland, perhaps because cycling is
> > thought to be safe.
>
> I lived in Holland for a couple years. The Dutch are lucky in
> several ways. The countryside is completely flat. The government
> has lays bike lanes parallel to motorways physically separate
> from the road (tell that to "big gov't is bad" Wilson)
>
> Another major difference between riding bikes in the US and France,
> and riding bikes in Holland, is that there's never any racing
> on bike lanes in Holland. People cycle at a leisurely pace,
> going shopping, taking care of day to day business. When they
> want to cycle at speed, they ride motorways. Dutch bikes are
> built to ride upright and not crouched, and they usually single
> speed.
I live in a very flat place (Florida) minus the harsh winter and still
don't get to ride a bike without dealing with stupid design and no
less stupid drivers. I may argue that stupid drivers are the result of
stupid design where bike lanes are not even connected. In some places
they just paint a bike (called sharrow) and the Jewish lawyer is ready
to take your business. If you lose a leg and you catch the driver, you
may be in for some big compensation (minus the lawyer fee).
Message has been deleted
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Mar 2, 2013, 2:32:17 PM3/2/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Mar 1, 5:33 pm, Huge <H...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > I do have an agenda, of course. It's protecting the rights of
> >> > > cyclists.
>
> Presumably to behave like cunts?
> >> > > I do have an agenda, of course. It's protecting the rights of
> >> > > cyclists.
>
Cunts and balls, what kind of perversion is going on here? I think you
gotta have balls to ride a bike but that's only my humble opinion.
On Mar 1, 10:56 am, tomorrow <s4rsri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 3:20 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It sounds like "All vehicles are equal, but some are better than
> > others."
>
> > It reminds me of "All men are created equal..." but slavery went on
> > for another century, and discrimination for two centuries. Something
> > funny with that definition of "vehicle."
>
> Yeah, and that is EXACTLY what you are saying with your proposed
> <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It sounds like "All vehicles are equal, but some are better than
> > others."
>
> > It reminds me of "All men are created equal..." but slavery went on
> > for another century, and discrimination for two centuries. Something
> > funny with that definition of "vehicle."
>
> draconian exclusions based on what *YOU* like and what *YOU* need and
> what *YOU* prefer in a vehicle, as long as *YOU* don't ever need to
> haul anything in a truck or an SUV, then *YOU* are fine with
> discriminating against those who do.
>
> You are so hypocritical it's not even funny any more!
C'mon, admit that driving an SUV is about the balls...
http://www.bullsballs.com/suv/chevsballs25.jpg
Be honest. The bully needs his balls nice and big to impress the girls
and intimidate the competition. Girls sometimes have an even bigger
urge to have balls since they got none.
Ask the Europeans and Japanese if they have the same urge. I think the
Chinese got it though. In other words, it's cultural as well as
genetic.
Look at the animal kingdom and pay attention at the clever and
sometimes stupid ways in which males attract females.
The people with real balls though are the ones riding a bicycle or
motorcycle.
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Mar 3, 2013, 2:46:37 PM3/3/13
to
On Mar 2, 5:31 pm, brian <bfunk...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:45:04 -0800 (PST), "His Highness the Wise
> riding folk to crow so.............
Not so. Nothing is easier than drive an automatic SUV (emphasis in
automatic). If you want the smart people to drive SUVs require stick
shift. Even an idiot can drive an SUV, place the thing in drive and
go, everybody gets out of your way.
Where the SUVs are successful is in the mating game. Plenty of women
do look at you, but --this is the catch-- they are the type most
likely to clean your bank account. We cyclists on the other hand are
deemed the "losers," but quality women seeking fun do come to us.
And figure this, you can save your money and get a hooker and still
have control over you bank account --if any. Don't worry about money,
just have fun.
But that's only my humble opinion.
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 11:45:04 -0800 (PST), "His Highness the Wise
> TibetanMonkey, the Most Humble Philosopher Alive"
>
>
> >The people with real balls though are the ones riding a bicycle or
> >motorcycle.
>
> Huh? And all this time I thought it was low I.Q. that caused such
> >motorcycle.
>
> riding folk to crow so.............
Not so. Nothing is easier than drive an automatic SUV (emphasis in
automatic). If you want the smart people to drive SUVs require stick
shift. Even an idiot can drive an SUV, place the thing in drive and
go, everybody gets out of your way.
Where the SUVs are successful is in the mating game. Plenty of women
do look at you, but --this is the catch-- they are the type most
likely to clean your bank account. We cyclists on the other hand are
deemed the "losers," but quality women seeking fun do come to us.
And figure this, you can save your money and get a hooker and still
have control over you bank account --if any. Don't worry about money,
just have fun.
But that's only my humble opinion.
His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher
Mar 7, 2013, 11:55:53 AM3/7/13
to
On Mar 6, 8:51 pm, Stan Pierce <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On 7/03/2013 7:07 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 3:19 pm, Stan Pierce <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> On 7/03/2013 1:44 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
> >> Philosopher wrote:
> >>> I think he made a revolution of sorts. He certainly made some people
> >>> mad while others claim devotion to him. But now he is gone. What are
> >>> his ideals anyway? SOCIALISM? What kind, democratic or autocratic? Do
> >>> they need to bother about elections anymore? Can the revolution
> >>> survive?
>
> >>> That's the risk of being CAUDILLO. It's not the kind of revolution you
> >>> want to create. Besides it was funded with oil. That's easy but it's
> >>> dirty. The true revolution will celebrate frugality while promoting
> >>> non polluting vehicles. You know what's the price of gas in Venezuela?
> >>> Something that would make Americans drool: 12 cents a gallon.
> >>> Americans would probably want something like Chavez without the
> >>> socialist rhetoric. But rhetoric is just words. What counts is the
> >>> facts. Venezuela remains a very dangerous place. Crime is out of
> >>> control. It's not what we want. Norway is a civilized country, also
> >>> socialist, also swimming in oil, but it has managed its resources
> >>> wisely. No littering or unsafe streets. Voted #1 in happiness.
>
> >>> Now what?
>
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> >> It demonstrates the evoltionary effect of the Northern European braim as
> >> compared with Equatorial brain development to deal with survival.
>
> >> Something the academics are not allowed to teach at universities now
> >> since the Marxists took over the universities.
>
> >> Teaching Equatorials a Northan language doesn't pass on the Northern
> >> evolutionary survival skills.
>
> > In what way climate influences the brain? Scandinavians were the
> > infamous Vikings, known for their terrorizing raids on other lands.
> > Not even the monks were safe.
>
> > Perhaps they learned to make love not war.
>
> Take a detailed look at the ships they built to do that...and think
> about how they worked out how to curve the wood to shape. Just that one
> little detail tells you what cognitive effort is needed.
>
> Violence is in *all* of us when survival matters and does'nt need any
> cognitive effort. After a few generations it was the Vikings who
> protected the monks because they learned to become Christian.
>
> On the other hand, the monks, or today any Christian, is are more
> likely to be terrorised by near equatorial Muslims who have never shown
> mental aptitude to reform. And to make it worse, they are proud about
> not reforming...now there's brains.
I think all religion has a negative effect on society. This same
Christian culture threatens the environment in ways the Muslim
terrorists can not dream of. We are destroying ourselves. The hope is
this pagan culture of "the forests are sacred," very powerful in
northern Europe, spreads around the world.
That's what the revolution will promote anyway.
> On 7/03/2013 7:07 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 3:19 pm, Stan Pierce <ecre...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >> On 7/03/2013 1:44 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
> >> Philosopher wrote:
> >>> I think he made a revolution of sorts. He certainly made some people
> >>> mad while others claim devotion to him. But now he is gone. What are
> >>> his ideals anyway? SOCIALISM? What kind, democratic or autocratic? Do
> >>> they need to bother about elections anymore? Can the revolution
> >>> survive?
>
> >>> That's the risk of being CAUDILLO. It's not the kind of revolution you
> >>> want to create. Besides it was funded with oil. That's easy but it's
> >>> dirty. The true revolution will celebrate frugality while promoting
> >>> non polluting vehicles. You know what's the price of gas in Venezuela?
> >>> Something that would make Americans drool: 12 cents a gallon.
> >>> Americans would probably want something like Chavez without the
> >>> socialist rhetoric. But rhetoric is just words. What counts is the
> >>> facts. Venezuela remains a very dangerous place. Crime is out of
> >>> control. It's not what we want. Norway is a civilized country, also
> >>> socialist, also swimming in oil, but it has managed its resources
> >>> wisely. No littering or unsafe streets. Voted #1 in happiness.
>
> >>> Now what?
>
> >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> >> It demonstrates the evoltionary effect of the Northern European braim as
> >> compared with Equatorial brain development to deal with survival.
>
> >> Something the academics are not allowed to teach at universities now
> >> since the Marxists took over the universities.
>
> >> Teaching Equatorials a Northan language doesn't pass on the Northern
> >> evolutionary survival skills.
>
> > In what way climate influences the brain? Scandinavians were the
> > infamous Vikings, known for their terrorizing raids on other lands.
> > Not even the monks were safe.
>
> > Perhaps they learned to make love not war.
>
> Take a detailed look at the ships they built to do that...and think
> about how they worked out how to curve the wood to shape. Just that one
> little detail tells you what cognitive effort is needed.
>
> Violence is in *all* of us when survival matters and does'nt need any
> cognitive effort. After a few generations it was the Vikings who
> protected the monks because they learned to become Christian.
>
> On the other hand, the monks, or today any Christian, is are more
> likely to be terrorised by near equatorial Muslims who have never shown
> mental aptitude to reform. And to make it worse, they are proud about
> not reforming...now there's brains.
I think all religion has a negative effect on society. This same
Christian culture threatens the environment in ways the Muslim
terrorists can not dream of. We are destroying ourselves. The hope is
this pagan culture of "the forests are sacred," very powerful in
northern Europe, spreads around the world.
That's what the revolution will promote anyway.
The Green Troll
Mar 21, 2013, 6:13:24 PM3/21/13
to al...@rev.net
On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
the first. There's a lot of nonsense in the statute books.
> > So try again - if you're going to proposed somehow banning/regulating/whatever "SUVs," you damned well had better be able to describe just what you're talking about. So what IS it? Are you going to define the category based on gross vehicle weight, size, displacement, gas mileage - WHAT? And more importantly, WHY (for each delineation).
>
> > Bob M.
>
So can buses.
> 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
That depends on what fuel they use, how far they are driven, and under
what conditions they are driven. When filled to capacity, they can be
more efficient than passenger cars or motorcycles. Some people use
them to carry cargo, such as furniture or sports equipment.
Regulate vehicle dimensions only to insure safety. To discourage
emission of greenhouse gases, tax the fuel in the amount of the damage
its consumption causes. Then use the tax revenue to alleviate the
damage, by regrowing tropical forests as heat sinks.
> I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
NASA and the Bush family want to colonize Mars, so they have a place
to live after they make Earth uninhabitable. They can charge lots of
money for transportation, land, and oxygen. Climate change will be
profitable for some people, and they know it. Anyone who doesn't pay
will be stuck in the ruins they left behind. For a taste of the
future, visit the South Bronx in August.
> 'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
> to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
> Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
> sleeping humans.”
Wouldn't New York City be cooler in the summer because of all the
seawater covering it? Wouldn't most of Bahrain also be under water?
You'd need a coffer dam to dig a ditch.
> I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
> not an acceptable way to do it.
Gibbons can climb higher.
Buster
<http://www.rev.net/~aloe/transportation>
<thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 12:44 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > It's certainly nothing you could write a law around.
Well, you could write an ambiguous, unenforceable law. It wouldn't be
> On Feb 26, 12:44 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > It's certainly nothing you could write a law around.
the first. There's a lot of nonsense in the statute books.
> > So try again - if you're going to proposed somehow banning/regulating/whatever "SUVs," you damned well had better be able to describe just what you're talking about. So what IS it? Are you going to define the category based on gross vehicle weight, size, displacement, gas mileage - WHAT? And more importantly, WHY (for each delineation).
>
> > Bob M.
>
> Just because:
>
> 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
So can trucks: pickups, dump trucks, moving vans, transit mixers, etc.
>
> 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
So can buses.
> 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
what conditions they are driven. When filled to capacity, they can be
more efficient than passenger cars or motorcycles. Some people use
them to carry cargo, such as furniture or sports equipment.
Regulate vehicle dimensions only to insure safety. To discourage
emission of greenhouse gases, tax the fuel in the amount of the damage
its consumption causes. Then use the tax revenue to alleviate the
damage, by regrowing tropical forests as heat sinks.
> I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
to live after they make Earth uninhabitable. They can charge lots of
money for transportation, land, and oxygen. Climate change will be
profitable for some people, and they know it. Anyone who doesn't pay
will be stuck in the ruins they left behind. For a taste of the
future, visit the South Bronx in August.
> 'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
> to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
> Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
> sleeping humans.”
seawater covering it? Wouldn't most of Bahrain also be under water?
You'd need a coffer dam to dig a ditch.
> I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
> not an acceptable way to do it.
Buster
<http://www.rev.net/~aloe/transportation>
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Mar 22, 2013, 12:22:08 PM3/22/13
to
On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, The Green Troll <a...@rev.net> wrote:
> On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 12:44 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > It's certainly nothing you could write a law around.
>
> Well, you could write an ambiguous, unenforceable law. It wouldn't be
> the first. There's a lot of nonsense in the statute books.
Ambiguous laws make for more suits and litigation. That's how the
> On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 12:44 pm, Bob Myers <bobmyer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Monday, February 25, 2013 12:45:02 PM UTC-5, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
> > > It's certainly nothing you could write a law around.
>
> Well, you could write an ambiguous, unenforceable law. It wouldn't be
> the first. There's a lot of nonsense in the statute books.
lawyers become so important.
Take, for example, the "3 feet law," referring to the clearance cars
must give to bicycles. That's a joke, a cruel joke.
>
> > > So try again - if you're going to proposed somehow banning/regulating/whatever "SUVs," you damned well had better be able to describe just what you're talking about. So what IS it? Are you going to define the category based on gross vehicle weight, size, displacement, gas mileage - WHAT? And more importantly, WHY (for each delineation).
make life very difficult for SUVs based on restrictions and
regulations. To begin with, they are not a car, so they require
special license to operate.
>
> > > Bob M.
>
> > Just because:
>
> > 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
>
> So can trucks: pickups, dump trucks, moving vans, transit mixers, etc.
> So can buses.
True, but the more we have the worse it is, right? We don't many dump
> > > Bob M.
>
> > Just because:
>
> > 1- They can cause catastrophic damage in an accident with a car,
>
> So can trucks: pickups, dump trucks, moving vans, transit mixers, etc.
> So can buses.
trucks parked by 5 star hotels.
>
> > 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
>
> That depends on what fuel they use, how far they are driven, and under
> what conditions they are driven. When filled to capacity, they can be
> more efficient than passenger cars or motorcycles. Some people use
> them to carry cargo, such as furniture or sports equipment.
Same fuel could be used for smaller cars. A minivan is much better in
> > 2- They contribute more to Climate Change.
>
> That depends on what fuel they use, how far they are driven, and under
> what conditions they are driven. When filled to capacity, they can be
> more efficient than passenger cars or motorcycles. Some people use
> them to carry cargo, such as furniture or sports equipment.
aerodynamics and crash safety (particularly for others). A rack on a
small car often makes up for size inside a Hummer, perhaps more.
>
> Regulate vehicle dimensions only to insure safety. To discourage
> emission of greenhouse gases, tax the fuel in the amount of the damage
> its consumption causes. Then use the tax revenue to alleviate the
> damage, by regrowing tropical forests as heat sinks.
It makes sense. I go for it.
> Regulate vehicle dimensions only to insure safety. To discourage
> emission of greenhouse gases, tax the fuel in the amount of the damage
> its consumption causes. Then use the tax revenue to alleviate the
> damage, by regrowing tropical forests as heat sinks.
>
> > I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
>
> NASA and the Bush family want to colonize Mars, so they have a place
> to live after they make Earth uninhabitable. They can charge lots of
> money for transportation, land, and oxygen. Climate change will be
> profitable for some people, and they know it. Anyone who doesn't pay
> will be stuck in the ruins they left behind. For a taste of the
> future, visit the South Bronx in August.
Let those responsible escape to Mars. That enough of a Hell anyway. It
> > I know that's a hot topic, but we can not hide from it:
>
> NASA and the Bush family want to colonize Mars, so they have a place
> to live after they make Earth uninhabitable. They can charge lots of
> money for transportation, land, and oxygen. Climate change will be
> profitable for some people, and they know it. Anyone who doesn't pay
> will be stuck in the ruins they left behind. For a taste of the
> future, visit the South Bronx in August.
take dinero, mucho dinero though. Hey, it's all about money. Predatory
capitalism thrives on disaster.
>
> > 'That doesn’t just mean you can’t dig a ditch outside--you won’t want
> > to do anything outside. In fact, New York City would be as hot as
> > Bahrain, and “Bahrain heat stress would induce hypothermia in even
> > sleeping humans.”
>
> Wouldn't New York City be cooler in the summer because of all the
> seawater covering it? Wouldn't most of Bahrain also be under water?
> You'd need a coffer dam to dig a ditch.
so.
>
> > I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
> > not an acceptable way to do it.
>
> Gibbons can climb higher.
True, but they must come to the ground once in a while. They have to
> > I understand some monkeys feel the urge to be gorillas but hey, that's
> > not an acceptable way to do it.
>
> Gibbons can climb higher.
realize what's going on at the bottom of the food chain and realize
how their predation endangers all.
0 new messages