Boycot Fuel Week!!

[NW_Pilot]

Need to arrange a massive nationwide fuel strike aginst the oil companys....

If it burns fuel then let it sit this means Boats, Trains, Planes,
Forklifts, Etc!!!!

Lets bring it to a halt for a week..... bet that would grab some attention.

[The Visitor]

Yeah, then they will think about not producing fuel.

John




NW_Pilot wrote:
> Need to arrange a massive nationwide fuel strike aginst the oil companys....
>
> If it burns fuel then let it sit this means Boats, Trains, Planes,
> Forklifts, Etc!!!!
>
> Lets bring it to a halt for a week..... bet that would grab some attention.
>
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote
in message . ..
> Need to arrange a massive nationwide fuel strike aginst the oil
> companys....
>
> If it burns fuel then let it sit this means Boats, Trains, Planes,
> Forklifts, Etc!!!!
>
> Lets bring it to a halt for a week..... bet that would grab some
> attention.
************************************************** ********

Who's attention? What would it achieve? What changes would be made because
of it?

Are you going to support me and my family, because I did not show up and
work, and got fired? How about all of all the other people that supported
your idea?

Seriously, that is the dumbest idea you have ever had.

Such similar ideas as not buying fuel for a week, if you did continue to
drive, would only offset the purchase of fuel to the next week.

It reminds me of a 3 year old that sits in the corner and says he is going
to hold his breath, until he gets what he wants.
--
Jim in NC

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 9, 7:43*pm, "NW_Pilot" <service(Spam)@aircraft"nospam"-me-
ok-"spamer"delivery.net> wrote:
> Need to arrange a massive nationwide fuel strike aginst the oil companys.....
>
> If it burns fuel then let it sit this means Boats, Trains, Planes,
> Forklifts, Etc!!!!
>
> Lets bring it to a halt for a week..... bet that would grab some attention..

So gas up your cars (in fact buy some extra) before hand so you dont'
run out. Then afterwards take your boat, train, planes down to the
station and fill them up. Yep, you may be right; buying 2 weeks of gas
on week 1 vs buying gas on week 1 and 2 will certainly show them. ;)

[Vaughn Simon]

"NW_Pilot" > wrote in
message . ..
>bet that would grab some attention.

One week matters zero and will attract zero attention. If you really want to
"grab their attention", figure out how to use less gas on a daily basis. For
starters, trash your gas hog, and rearrange your life and your behaviour so that
you spend less time behind the wheel. Of course, there are the old tricks from
the days when cars were rare and expensive; carpool, use public transportation,
live near where you work, walk, ride a bike, get a motorscooter, etc.

You probably already are flying less.

Vaughn

[Blueskies]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NW_Pilot" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>bet that would grab some attention.
>
> One week matters zero and will attract zero attention. If you really want to "grab their attention", figure out how
> to use less gas on a daily basis. For starters, trash your gas hog, and rearrange your life and your behaviour so
> that you spend less time behind the wheel. Of course, there are the old tricks from the days when cars were rare and
> expensive; carpool, use public transportation, live near where you work, walk, ride a bike, get a motorscooter, etc.
>
> You probably already are flying less.
>
> Vaughn
>

Did anyone get stuck behind a line of semi's last week, going 'slow'. They should do it again...

[Robert M. Gary]

On Apr 10, 3:22*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message

> Did anyone get stuck behind a line of semi's last week, going 'slow'. They should do it again...

Yea, I heard gas prices dropped $2/gal after the gas companies found
out about it. Oh no, wait that was an Algore movie.

-Robert

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> So gas up your cars (in fact buy some extra) before hand so you dont'
> run out. Then afterwards take your boat, train, planes down to the
> station and fill them up. Yep, you may be right; buying 2 weeks of gas
> on week 1 vs buying gas on week 1 and 2 will certainly show them. ;)

That's the rub. You are soooooo correct!

Of course, if everyone parked the car for every trip that could
truthfully be done by foot, bicycle, or mass-transit, so there wasn't
any pre or post stocking up... Personally, I enjoy cycling to work and
local errands.

I have neighbors who maneuver the mini-van to the mailbox, to avoid a 60
foot walk. <G>

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> So gas up your cars (in fact buy some extra) before hand so you dont'
>> run out. Then afterwards take your boat, train, planes down to the
>> station and fill them up. Yep, you may be right; buying 2 weeks of gas
>> on week 1 vs buying gas on week 1 and 2 will certainly show them. ;)
>
> That's the rub. You are soooooo correct!
....

> I have neighbors who maneuver the mini-van to the mailbox, to avoid a 60
> foot walk. <G>

"Suicide Squad...ATTACK!!"

[Blueskies]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Apr 10, 3:22 pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message

> Did anyone get stuck behind a line of semi's last week, going 'slow'. They should do it again...

Yea, I heard gas prices dropped $2/gal after the gas companies found
out about it. Oh no, wait that was an Algore movie.

-Robert


Deisel did go down about $0.15...

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I have neighbors who maneuver the mini-van to the mailbox, to avoid a 60
>> foot walk. <G>
>
> "Suicide Squad...ATTACK!!"

None needed!

We recently had a local woman fall out of a Jeep Grand Cherokee while
"mailbox manuvering". She got stuck in the seatbelt and was dragged
and run over by her own vehicle as it rolled down the sloped street.

[Matt W. Barrow]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
. ..
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>>
>>> I have neighbors who maneuver the mini-van to the mailbox, to avoid a 60
>>> foot walk. <G>
>>
>> "Suicide Squad...ATTACK!!"
>
> None needed!
>
> We recently had a local woman fall out of a Jeep Grand Cherokee while
> "mailbox manuvering". She got stuck in the seatbelt and was dragged and
> run over by her own vehicle as it rolled down the sloped street.

Darwin at work!!

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:59:52 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>Darwin at work!!
>


Darn tootin'!

[NW_Pilot]

Unless you live in the Soviet State Of Washington! Even the adults have to
ware helmets on Bicycles or anything with wheels.


"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> So gas up your cars (in fact buy some extra) before hand so you dont'
>> run out. Then afterwards take your boat, train, planes down to the
>> station and fill them up. Yep, you may be right; buying 2 weeks of gas
>> on week 1 vs buying gas on week 1 and 2 will certainly show them. ;)
>
> That's the rub. You are soooooo correct!
>
> Of course, if everyone parked the car for every trip that could truthfully
> be done by foot, bicycle, or mass-transit, so there wasn't any pre or post
> stocking up... Personally, I enjoy cycling to work and local errands.
>
> I have neighbors who maneuver the mini-van to the mailbox, to avoid a 60
> foot walk. <G>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:55:20 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
> wrote:

>Unless you live in the Soviet State Of Washington! Even the adults have to
>ware helmets on Bicycles or anything with wheels.

I'm 42, and have cracked helmets to remind me why I wear I wear a
helmet when riding on the road or mountain biking. There is no law
requiring me to wear a helmet where I live. I have no illusion that
the plastic take-out container on my hear will save me from certain
death, but I do see mitigation of many typical injuries.

I'll admit:

A.) Helmets are silly when traveling at walking speed along the scenic
"rail trail" path. However, it is much easier to get a kid to wear a
helmet if the adults do the same.

B.) It sucks when such things are legislated. Even though I choose to
wear a helmet, I think it should remain the rider's choice.

I also wear a helmet and shield while playing hockey, and eye and ear
protection while woodworking, 'cause all the stuff works as
advertised.


---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

NW_Pilot > wrote:
> Unless you live in the Soviet State Of Washington! Even the adults have to
> ware helmets on Bicycles or anything with wheels.

I dislike the legislation of helmets. So is my wife, a physican who has
spent too much time working in the ER. However, her take on it is that the
laws should be something like:

1) if you choose to ride without a helmet, you are required to have a
signed organ donor card in your wallet.
2) arriving in the ER after a serious accident that would have been
mitigated by a helmet results in an automatic "Do Not Resuscitate"
physician order.


Government should not make laws preventing you from being stupid. However,
society shouldn't have pay for the results of your stupidity.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Lawson]

And it doesn't occur to you that the law YOU want gov't to pass is far more
restrictive and punituive than anything else they have ever proposed. YOU
are advocating gov't sponsored MURDER (lack of life saving medical treatment
readily available) for the simple act of not acting wisely. If it comes to
that I'd rather have complete anarchy thank you very much. You have to
understand that FREEDOM (we have very little) means the freedom to be stupid
and thoughtless, any consequences should be those imposed by the people who
you encounter and affect exercising their own freedoms, not penalties
imposed by the state, even if you happen to agree with them.

MY freedom is my ability to disagree with your stupid and self absorbed
point of view, and your freedom is to disagree with mine. What you are
proposing is to allow the state to decide who lives and who dies, frankly
I've never met a bureaucrat I would trust with that choice.



"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> NW_Pilot >
> wrote:
>> Unless you live in the Soviet State Of Washington! Even the adults have
>> to
>> ware helmets on Bicycles or anything with wheels.
>
> I dislike the legislation of helmets. So is my wife, a physican who has
> spent too much time working in the ER. However, her take on it is that
> the
> laws should be something like:
>
> 1) if you choose to ride without a helmet, you are required to have a
> signed organ donor card in your wallet.
> 2) arriving in the ER after a serious accident that would have been
> mitigated by a helmet results in an automatic "Do Not Resuscitate"
> physician order.
>
>
> Government should not make laws preventing you from being stupid.
> However,
> society shouldn't have pay for the results of your stupidity.
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Boise, ID
>

[Lawson]

The idea of a boycott is just about the dumbest thing I've ever read, unless
you can maintain a complete and effective embargo for a full six months and
even then it would have only a short term effect. There is a way to reduce
fuel prices, both on a personal and national level. STOP USING SO MUCH FUEL!
Drive less, use and choose vehicles that are more efficient. I'm betting you
won't! And so are the fuel companies. We're greedy and unwilling to give or
sacrifice, that costs. We're addicted, and the oil companies are just big,
legal dealers to our addictions. Can you get yourself off their product? I
bet you won't even try.

We've been conditioned all our lives to consume, endlessly and needlessly.
Most of us can't even devine the difference between desire and need. If we
ever figure it out, the whole world will change.

Have no fear, the world will not change, we will not change. The whole human
race is doomed, the rich will die second last, just ahead of the people who
can actually manage for themselves. In all honesty, I've enjoyed the
hedonistic lifestyle we've created so I hope to go out early, ahead of the
hardship. I've always managed to do OK, so I expect I'll be safely in the
ground before things get too bad.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
> There is a way to reduce fuel prices, both on a personal and national
> level. STOP USING SO MUCH FUEL! Drive less, use and choose vehicles that
> are more efficient. I'm betting you won't!

I drive very little more than I need to, and I drive the most fuel efficient
vehicle that meets my mission requirements. (I get 27-30 MPG consistently
out of a small SUV.) How do you know that that's not what most folks are
doing?
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Lawson]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
>> There is a way to reduce fuel prices, both on a personal and national
>> level. STOP USING SO MUCH FUEL! Drive less, use and choose vehicles that
>> are more efficient. I'm betting you won't!
>
> I drive very little more than I need to, and I drive the most fuel
> efficient
> vehicle that meets my mission requirements. (I get 27-30 MPG consistently
> out of a small SUV.) How do you know that that's not what most folks are
> doing?
> --

So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to. Wasteful but OK with it
because others are worse, are you looking for my approval? Why would you
care what I think?

If it matters, I drive a company car, a lot. I do it because my work demands
it, in a wise society that would not be the case. But we are not a wise
society, we're the stupidest most wasteful bunch on the planet. We will
happily burn down a forest to make the lumber we've harvested more valuable.

How do I know what others are doing?? How do I know?? Jay my boy, look
around at the number of huge trucks modified with gigantic tires and othe
devices to make them burn more fuel speeding down the road with one
occupant. Look at the number of once somewhat economical cars that have been
modded to be noisier and less efficient for the sake of image trying to pas
those trucks. BTW, I'm sure all those vehicles meet their occupant's mission
statement.

IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving tax
breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it rise to
$10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard mistress, it leads
us to make poor choices and then justify them

If you want to save money on fuel, use less of it. The equation is easy
enough. Or just keep on doing things the same, I'm sure we'll all come up
with very good reasons after the fact.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Lawson" > wrote
>
> IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving tax
> breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it rise to
> $10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard mistress, it
> leads us to make poor choices and then justify them

Good way to have the economy to go tits up, immediately.

In case you didn't get the memo, there are people that have to burn gas.
People that haul construction equipment to build that house you live in.
People that haul food to the processor, to the distributors, and to the
grocery store. People that transport the computer that you bought and are
now using, and even before that, from raw material, to microchip, to
assembly, to transport it to the store you bought it from; it takes fuel to
make things and transport them.

I suppose you will not going to visit your relatives, that no longer live in
the same area that you now live in, as that would use more fuel, too.
Better plan on staying at home, and sitting in a cold dark room, (or a hot
dark room this summer) and not going out to eat, or to see a movie or a
play, either. That would be burning fuel that is not necessary. Forget
about eating meat more than perhaps once a week, because raising meat burns
a lot of fuel. Forget about sending the kids to college, because once you
have to pay for fuel at 3 or 4 times the cost, and increases in EVERY thing
that you buy, and your pay does not go up enough to reflect that amount of
increases in your budget, you will not be able to afford the tuition, or
room and board.

No, increasing fuel to many times its present cost is not the answer.
Everything we do depends on fuel, and if we suddenly don't have it, or can
not afford it, the way you have become accustomed to living will disappear
almost overnight.

I'm not saying that wasting fuel is a good thing, and that some changes
don't need to be made. I am saying that raising fuel prices many time
present cost is not the way to force conservation, unless you want to live
in a bankrupt economy. Prices as they are now, may have already sent forces
in action that will cause the economy to come crashing down on our heads.
It may be too late, already, to save ourselves from a deep recession.

So what do you say, Lawson? All that sound good to you? Or did you not
think that far ahead, yet?
--
Jim in NC

[Lawson]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good way to have the economy to go tits up, immediately.
>
> In case you didn't get the memo, there are people that have to burn gas.
> People that haul construction equipment to build that house you live in.
> People that haul food to the processor, to the distributors, and to the
> grocery store. People that transport the computer that you bought and are
> now using, and even before that, from raw material, to microchip, to
> assembly, to transport it to the store you bought it from; it takes fuel
> to make things and transport them.

> in a bankrupt economy. Prices as they are now, may have already sent
> forces in action that will cause the economy to come crashing down on our
> heads. It may be too late, already, to save ourselves from a deep
> recession.
>
> So what do you say, Lawson? All that sound good to you? Or did you not
> think that far ahead, yet?
> --
> Jim in NC

Wow, anger and denial! I'm not surprised and I don't nescessarily disagree
with you. But as you say yourself, it may already be too late. The problem
is that you and every other one of us want to deny the problem. If we forced
the price of fuel up to realistic levels the economy could adjust. New
technologies could emerge. If we wait until we have plunged off the cliff to
act the pain will be deeper and longer. So yes, in answer to your question.
I have thought that far forward and yes that all sounds pretty good to me
when weighed against the alternatives.

Fortunately Jim, almost eveyone thinks like you. So I will be able to
continue in my job, burning thousands of dollars worth of fuel every year to
make trips I probably could avoid to continue business as my employer sees
fit. I'm too old to serve in the military again, so I won't have to fight
for the oil. But our children, your children included are so screwed by our
inaction. I guess that's OK with you? Or didn't you think that far ahead? We
don't think, we don't plan. I already said we would happily burn down the
forest to raise the value of lumber, high profit now, none in the future.

You see the way I figure it, planning into the next quarter is pretty
short-sighted. Since we're thinking about the future of our species, maybe
we could plan a little farther out.

But this is all my opinion, maybe you have a better plan? I 'm guessing you
don't and you're afraid of change so you'll just let the world fall apart
around you. Don't worry you've got millions of people for company. Of course
you'll have to compete with them for the remaining food and fuel, but that's
a worry for another day, right?

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
> So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
> only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.

Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still gets
27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets done.

> Wasteful but OK with it because others are worse, are you looking for my
> approval? Why would you care what I think?

I don't *care* what you think. You have no right to try to tell me whether
or not you approve of what I drive. I'm going to live my life without input
from enviro-wacko busybodies who think they know my needs better than I do.

> How do I know what others are doing?? How do I know?? Jay my boy, look
> around at the number of huge trucks modified with gigantic tires and othe
> devices to make them burn more fuel speeding down the road with one
> occupant. Look at the number of once somewhat economical cars that have been
> modded to be noisier and less efficient for the sake of image trying to pas
> those trucks. BTW, I'm sure all those vehicles meet their occupant's mission
> statement.

If they do, neiher you nor I have any right to approve or disapprove.

> IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving tax
> breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it rise to
> $10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard mistress, it leads
> us to make poor choices and then justify them

That's the European solution. It would totally wreck our economy. Of course,
if we had no economic activity, we wouldn't be doing anything to te
environment - which is just what the enviro-wackos want: protect the
environment, and damn the human cost.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
> If we forced the price of fuel up to realistic levels

There's nothing realistic about a price that heavily distorted by artificial
taxation, which is what you advocated. That is, of course, the standard
enviro-wacko ploy: adding on "real costs" that are mere paper fictions in
order to coerce everyone into their utopia.

> the economy could adjust.

Dead economies don't adjust to anything.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Morgans[_2_]]

">> the economy could adjust.
>
> Dead economies don't adjust to anything.

Amen.

Just remember, that if you are talking to anyone younger than30 years old,
they have never lived through a real recession.

Just to remind me, what was the cause of the last recession?

Oh, that's right, fuel costs.

I'm afraid we are in for a bumpy ride!
--
Jim in NC

[Frank Stutzman[_2_]]

Lawson > wrote:
> And it doesn't occur to you that the law YOU want gov't to pass is far more
> restrictive and punituive than anything else they have ever proposed. YOU
> are advocating gov't sponsored MURDER (lack of life saving medical treatment
> readily available) for the simple act of not acting wisely.

Well, thats certainly an interesting spin. I look at it as re-enforcing
natural selection. If you are too dumb to attempt at least a modicum of
self-preservation, then the least you could do for the rest of us is
to remove yourself from the gene pool.

> MY freedom is my ability to disagree with your stupid and self absorbed
> point of view, and your freedom is to disagree with mine.

Yup. We both have our freedom to disagree. At least I can be civil about
it.

> What you are
> proposing is to allow the state to decide who lives and who dies, frankly
> I've never met a bureaucrat I would trust with that choice.

Its not a bureaucratic decision. Its the individuals decision. They have
the choice to wear a helment or not. If they choose not to, great, but
then they ought to be responsible for that choice. Society should not
be burdened by people who have turned themselfs into vegetables by doing
purposely dumb things.

And for what its worth, I'm done with this discussion. I'm way over my
limit of off topic posts today.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Lawson" > wrote:

> I've got an idea,
> lets try doing something smart instead of something simple and profitable.

which it is? do something smart or tax people into the poor house?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Lawson]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
>> So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
>> only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.
>
> Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still
> gets
> 27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets done.
>
I've been to Minnesota Jay, it's only snowy a small percentage of the time.
You're justifying your choices, I never asked you to. You cannot earn my
approval and I sincerely hope you don't want to.

>> Wasteful but OK with it because others are worse, are you looking for my
>> approval? Why would you care what I think?
>
> I don't *care* what you think. You have no right to try to tell me whether
> or not you approve of what I drive. I'm going to live my life without
> input
> from enviro-wacko busybodies who think they know my needs better than I
> do.
>

I have every right to think what I want about you Jay, and I will thanks. I
also have every right to tell you so should I choose to do so. You have a
pretty distorted idea of what freedom represents. I am quite glad to hear
that you don't care, you shouldn't. I am probably not an environmental
whacko but it sounds appealing, I guarantee you that I burn more fuel than
you do. The difference is that I don't deny that it's a pretty poor idea and
I think we should do better. I think we are destroying our future and
denying it all the way to the grave. The difference between us is that I
know it's bad, I say it's bad, and I make no attempt to justify it. I'm
aiming to stop, almost everything I do every day is one step closer to
living a better, simpler, less wasteful life. I moved to a smaller more
efficient aircraft, to try to help. It's not a need, it's an expensive,
wasteful indulgence and I should probably not do it. It doesn't hurt one bit
to admit it and one day I'll have to quit, as will we all.

I don't know what your needs are, and I don't think you do. Most of the
people I've met cannot determine what is a NEED against what it is that they
want, you yourself put your desires ahead of your needs when you claimed you
would do what you WANTED to. Didn't you know?

Yes I've heard the republicans claim that any change in how we do things
would sink the economy in a heartbeat, but I'm not quite stupid enough to
overlook the fact that they've managed to do it anyway all the while salting
millions of dollars away for themselves and their friends. I've got an idea,
lets try doing something smart instead of something simple and profitable.

[Lawson]

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
>> MY freedom is my ability to disagree with your stupid and self absorbed
>> point of view, and your freedom is to disagree with mine.
>
> Yup. We both have our freedom to disagree. At least I can be civil about
> it.
>

Difference of opinion extends to what constitutes civility I guess. Failing
to deliver life saving medical attention because you disgree with someone
else choices is a far more uncivil, cruel and inhuman act than pointing out
that I think it's stupid. I expect your hard-hearted resolve would disappear
the instant it was your child being denied treatment.

>Its not a bureaucratic decision. Its the individuals decision.

Great, I'm guessing almost nobody is going to choose to be harvested for
organs. You do realize that after the helmetless motorcyclists, they'll come
after the helmetless bicyclists, skateboarders, the smokers, the drinkers,
the surfers, the divers, the drivers, the flyers and on and on until nobody
can do anything that someone else determines is unsafe.

No, I think I'd rather pay for others mistakes in judgement, until I'm sure
that I am infallable.

[Jay Maynard]

On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
>>> So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
>>> only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.
>> Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still
>> gets 27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets
>> done.
> I've been to Minnesota Jay, it's only snowy a small percentage of the time.
> You're justifying your choices, I never asked you to. You cannot earn my
> approval and I sincerely hope you don't want to.

I'm not trying o. I am explaining my rationale in hopes that you will
somehow realize that people's choices are valid even if they disagree from
yours.

> I have every right to think what I want about you Jay, and I will thanks. I
> also have every right to tell you so should I choose to do so.

I have a perfect right to tell you to butt the hell out of my life, too.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

[Lawson]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lawson" > wrote:
>
>> I've got an idea,
>> lets try doing something smart instead of something simple and
>> profitable.
>
> which it is? do something smart or tax people into the poor house?
>

No idea really Bob, if someone comes up with a good idea that will work I
hope we recognize it. I pay a lot of tax now, taxing my fuel more heavily
will not be the worst thing that can happen to me if that money is put to
truly good use finding a new way of transporting things. I pay 3.20
something now. If that were to suddenly rise to $5 or six, I would manage.
Perhaps I would be encouraged to find a new way to service my customers that
would give me a competitive edge. Perhaps my customers would find different
ways of doing things, maybe someone would come up with a car that was more
than 20% efficient. Gas WILL be $5, then 6, then 10. It WILL happen, perhaps
if we do it now, we can research a solution rather than send all the money
to the people who attacked us in the first place. Right now it looks to me
like we're just making sure they win in the long run.

So far the only solution we've been offered is to turn our food into a
gasoline additive, something that just seems wrong to me. So, if they really
offered me the choice of more expensive gas not made from food, I'd likely
buy that.

[Lawson]

"Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not trying o. I am explaining my rationale in hopes that you will
> somehow realize that people's choices are valid even if they disagree from
> yours.

I'm not interested in your rational Jay. If you drove a Kenworth I wouldn't
care. Your choices are your own, you have to pay for them. Please refer back
to the original statement that started all this. IF you want to pay less for
fuel, use less fuel. It's simple and self evident truth, justifying those
choices is not going to cut your fuel costs. You choose to drive more than
you have to in a vehiicle that burns a certain amount of fuel. That cost is
determined by you and your choices. I've been trying to tell you that it is
your choice and not to try to justify them to me. You can't and you
shouldn't try to. My judgement of your choices should be entire irrelevant
to you and I don't think I said anywhere that I disagreed with them.

>
>> I have every right to think what I want about you Jay, and I will thanks.
>> I
>> also have every right to tell you so should I choose to do so.
>
> I have a perfect right to tell you to butt the hell out of my life, too.

Yes you do, but in what respect do you feel that a series of typed letters
on an open newsgroup telling you that you should probably not be concerned
about what I think or say about your choices is IN your life? Ignore me,
delete me. Don't explain yourself to me, I don't need it or deserve it from
a stranger.

Anyway, I've had a very nice day trying to advance an idea or two maybe
somebody will think about some portion of it without blowing a fuse.

Right now I have to bring in some wood. I cut my heating costs and now I
have to sacrifice some labour. If I should hurt myself and end up in the
hospital because of my reckless disregard of axe safety, please do not
harvest my organs. I'm not quite done with them yet.

[[email protected]]

Lawson > wrote:

> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
> >> So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I imagine)
> >> only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.
> >
> > Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still
> > gets
> > 27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets done.
> >
> I've been to Minnesota Jay, it's only snowy a small percentage of the time.

So what's the alternative?

Buy a super econo-box and either rent something real or stay home in
the winter?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Just remember, that if you are talking to anyone younger than 30 years
> old, they have never lived through a real recession.

Every time I hear young people talk about this "recession" -- with
historically below average unemployment and interest rates at <6% -- I
remember that we haven't had bad times in America since Jimmy Carter was
POTUS...

Kids today really have no idea what a recession is like.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote >
> So what's the alternative?
>
> Buy a super econo-box and either rent something real or stay home in
> the winter?

Lawson's writing style is combative, argumentative, and rather troll like.

Sound familiar?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> Just remember, that if you are talking to anyone younger than 30 years
>> old, they have never lived through a real recession.
>
> Every time I hear young people talk about this "recession" -- with
> historically below average unemployment and interest rates at <6% -- I
> remember that we haven't had bad times in America since Jimmy Carter was
> POTUS...
>
> Kids today really have no idea what a recession is like.

Exactly what I was saying. They have no reference to know how to compare
how bad a recession could be.

If a solution to the high energy prices can not be found (I fear anything
will be too little, too late, at this point) then they may find out too soon
what a real recession is.

A recession should be carefully avoided, as it is not a good thing to live
through, and if others out there have lived through one, they will agree to
this, completely.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Just remember, that if you are talking to anyone younger than 30 years
>> old, they have never lived through a real recession.
>
> Every time I hear young people talk about this "recession" -- with
> historically below average unemployment and interest rates at <6% -- I
> remember that we haven't had bad times in America since Jimmy Carter was
> POTUS...
>
> Kids today really have no idea what a recession is like.

Or even what a recession is! Hint: contrary to the news media's claims,
we aren't IN a recession as we have yet to have two consecutive quarters
of negative GDP "growth."

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
>>> Just remember, that if you are talking to anyone younger than 30 years
>>> old, they have never lived through a real recession.
>> Every time I hear young people talk about this "recession" -- with
>> historically below average unemployment and interest rates at <6% -- I
>> remember that we haven't had bad times in America since Jimmy Carter was
>> POTUS...
>>
>> Kids today really have no idea what a recession is like.
>
> Exactly what I was saying. They have no reference to know how to compare
> how bad a recession could be.
>
> If a solution to the high energy prices can not be found (I fear anything
> will be too little, too late, at this point) then they may find out too soon
> what a real recession is.
>
> A recession should be carefully avoided, as it is not a good thing to live
> through, and if others out there have lived through one, they will agree to
> this, completely.

Well, having lived through the oil embargo of 1973 and the Carter
economy of the later 70s, I'm not sure recessions are all bad. They
tend to trim the fat out of both business and personal budgets, cause
people to be more efficient, etc. I think an occasional recession is
probably a good thing.

Matt

[Private]

> wrote in message
...
> Lawson > wrote:
>
>> "Jay Maynard" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 2008-04-12, Lawson > wrote:
>> >> So, you're one guy who only drives his 4 wheel drive (on road I
>> >> imagine)
>> >> only a LITTLE more than he figures he has to.
>> >
>> > Damn right I drive a 4WD vehicle on snowy roads in Minnesota. It still
>> > gets
>> > 27-30 MPG on the highway, which is where 95% of my driving gets done.
>> >
>> I've been to Minnesota Jay, it's only snowy a small percentage of the
>> time.
>
> So what's the alternative?
>
> Buy a super econo-box and either rent something real or stay home in
> the winter?


IMHO the alternative is good radial winter tires mounted on dedicated rims
to make seasonal changes easy. I live in the Rocky mountains and while we
probably get a little less snow than Minnesota, winter tires allow me to go
everywhere my 4x4 did with the possible exception of the last 250 feet of my
driveway, YMMV. With the savings on fuel I am prepared to do a little
shoveling or just walk a few more feet to my house, both are good exercise.

27-30 mpg is not as bad as some (or most), but not all your driving is on
hwy. I drove nothing but 4x4 vehicles for many years in the mistaken belief
that I needed them. I now use a front wheel drive mini wagon with a roof
rack and find that it does (almost) everything I did before with a much
bigger vehicle but at a much reduced cost of both fuel and everything else
like initial cost, tires and brakes. I now get 37mp(us)g combined and my
wife gets 45mp(us)g hwy, (I get a little less). Not making unnecessary
trips is a 100% saving on fuel and maintenance. I estimate that using a
smaller vehicle has reduced my transportation costs at least 50%. YMMV

Happy landings,

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Lawson" > wrote:

> IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving
> tax breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it
> rise to $10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard
> mistress, it leads us to make poor choices and then justify them

http://storyofstuff.com

[Brad.Tennison]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Lawson" > wrote:
>
>> IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving
>> tax breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it
>> rise to $10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard
>> mistress, it leads us to make poor choices and then justify them
>
> http://storyofstuff.com

That's a very interesting video!

[Matt W. Barrow]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> "Lawson" > wrote:
>
>> IF the government was truly interested in helping, they's stop giving
>> tax breaks to oil companies, tax the crap out of gasoline and let it
>> rise to $10. Then maybe we'd use less, maybe. Addiction is a hard
>> mistress, it leads us to make poor choices and then justify them

And government is a WORSE (the worse) mistress.
>
> http://storyofstuff.com

Interesting choice given the apparent audience.

[[email protected]]

Reality Check!

The cost of producing the fuel is about 10 to 20 % of the cost of
crude. A boycott is useless. Learning to conserve on a daily basis,
week by week and year by year would have an effect on crude.
IOW we need to become independent of "foreign oil".

Back in the 70's when people were willing to conserve the price of
crude dropped...and we went right back to the HP race and big
cars/trucks. The same would happen again, but until the price forces
people to conserve "It aint gonna happen" and the average drivers
aren't going to conserve until forced into it.

Maybe by then we'll have synthetic, or renewable fuels such as the
algae produced Bio-diesel which could also be used to reclaim the CO2
out of power plants. Eliminating the need for petroleum to power cars
would cut our emissions to nearly half of present. Unfortunately
there are two problems. Even if we could wave a magic wand and have
unlimited bio-diesel tomorrow it'd take decades before our fleet would
be changed over. The average life of a car in 2006 was 9.2 years and
the scrapage rate was about 5% which is almost a record low. That
means if we changed all new cars to this magic fuel that in 10 years
we'd still have half the original fleet. In 20 years we'd still have a
substantial number of them on the road, but after 20 years it'd be a
small % of the fleet. Then we'd also have to come up with some form of
subsidy to allow poor and even a portion of the middle income class to
afford the new cars. However there is no magic wand and it could
easily take a decade to perfect the process even if it does show great
promise.

Oh! It's quite likely these now fuels will be comparable to the
current price of gas. OTOH they should have little or no effect on the
food chain as do corn and soybeans. (Except for transportation costs)

As to the question raised about spending 50 grand to convert an
aircraft to a diesel engine. You bet I'd do it even if that would be
a major portion of the Deb's value. 50 Grand would be a bargain. Then
again, with all the other stuff, maybe we could get some sort of
subsidy or low interest government loan<:-))

Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> The cost of producing the fuel is about 10 to 20 % of the cost of
> crude. A boycott is useless. Learning to conserve on a daily basis,
> week by week and year by year would have an effect on crude.

It was just in the paper that -- for the first time since they started
counting -- traffic counts in Florida are down 7.5% for the first three
months of 2008.

Considering it has consistently gone up 2% every year, that's a huge change.
Translated nationwide, this could mean the biggest drop in demand for
gasoline since WWII.

Dunno how that translates into price per gallon, though, given the weakness
of the dollar. But it certainly can't hurt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
> Reality Check!
>
> The cost of producing the fuel is about 10 to 20 % of the cost of
> crude.

Are you saying that the cost of producing a gallon of gas, with oil at
$100/bbl (50 gal), is another $10-20/gallon?

>A boycott is useless. Learning to conserve on a daily basis,
> week by week and year by year would have an effect on crude.
> IOW we need to become independent of "foreign oil".

Do you have any figures on how much we could conserve even with wartime
levels of conservation?

Studies (that I've mentioned here in the past) indicate that we could save
15% or more, nationwide, just by synchronizing our traffic signals for
better traffic flow, which makes sense seeing that over 50% of our gasoline
use is in metro areas.

--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt W. Barrow]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Back in the 70's when people were willing to conserve the price of
> crude dropped...

Cite?

> and we went right back to the HP race and big
> cars/trucks. The same would happen again, but until the price forces
> people to conserve "It aint gonna happen" and the average drivers
> aren't going to conserve until forced into it.

Yes, Americans (many) are into forcing people to do things...until it slams
them in their own ass.

Then they bitch and moan and blame everyone else.