Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

[The Wogster]

Stephen Harding wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It ain't easy to build a refinery *anywhere* in the US, just as it
>>> ain't easy to drill for new oil *anywhere* in the US.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no 'new oil' anywhere in the US, so
>> drilling for it would be pretty silly.
>
>
> If you're not going to be able to drill for it, why look too
> hard? If you don't look, how would you know?
>
> There's certainly tons of oil sands in Montana and Alberta
> to supply US consumption rates for a century or so.
>
> Of course that's not "drilling" for oil. It's "digging" for
> it.

That's part of the problem, they usually need to use open pit mining,
and the extraction of the oil from the sand, is a rather energy
intensive one. Essentially you mix the oil sand with hot water, then
mix it up, and skim the oil off the top, but this leaves you with a
polluted sand, polluted water, and a very heavy kind of oil called
bitumin, which takes more energy to process into synthetic crude oil.
Not to mention that your left with the problem that you always end up
with when strip mining. Most of the oil sands are also too deep for
strip mining, so you either need to use other mining methods, or forget
it. It's only been recently that oil sand production, has made economic
sense, with the very high cost of conventional oil.

Currently the Canadian oil production is 3Mbbl per day, and 2Mbbl of
that is used domestically, the other 1Mbbl is available on the open
market, the United States buys it today, but that's ONLY 1/20th what the
United States uses.

W

 

[Paul Turner]

Stephen Harding wrote:

> And no new refineries have been built in 20 years. I'm sure
> the oil companies would love to build a few more though,
> given the near inelastic demand for the stuff in the US.

If demand for a product is inelastic, then it is irrational to build
expensive capacity to supply more of that product. To say that demand is
highly inelastic means that demand is almost constant regardless of price.
In other words, it would take a large increase in price to convince people
use less and a large reduction in price to convince people to use more. Why
should an existing producer spend money to add capacity if people will not
consume the extra production without a large reduction in price?

--
Paul Turner

 

[Mark Hickey]

"gds" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yep, but I loved my little Pinto.

Me too - but mine was a wagon (a '72, metalflake lime green). Still a
little log wagon, but it had a few things going for it...

1) The nice European 2 liter cross-flow head motor
2) A much better (stiffer) suspension
3) No problem with the gas tanks exploding

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > Having said that, it should be clear to any observer that landotter's
> > > posts are much more intelligent and rational than Sorni's and di's
> > > typical content-free sniping. I certainly hope Sorni and di don't
> > > think they're being persuasive!
> >
> >
> > I'd ask when namecalling ("lying asshat", whatever that means,
> > "murderer", "criminal", etc.), character assassination ("alcoholic"),
> > and unsupported assertions ("gutted the [Texas] educational system")
> > became intelligent and rational discussion but it would be pointless.
>
> Whether we like it or not, there are a lot of rude insults thrown about
> on Usenet. They're directed at other posters, and public figures, and
> corporations, and ethnic groups, and political parties, etc. Some of
> them, no doubt, are false. ;-)
>
> But comparing two posters, if one gives _only_ insults and wisecracks
> while the other uses insults, wisecracks, facts and explanations, the
> second poster is exhibiting more intelligence. He's probably going to
> be more persuasive than the first guy.
>
> .... well, depending who he's trying to persuade. I like to pretend
> that people respond to facts and logic, although I know that's often
> not the case.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Why I disagree with you on this:

1) That insults and downright libelous assertions have become
commonplace in political discussions here or elsewhere does not change
their character from insulting and libelous to "intelligent and
rational".
2) There are rare and isolated instances where a Usenet post may indeed
change someone's opinion on a particular subject but they are just
that, isolated and rare.
3) I re-read all of his posts in this thread and could identify no
objective "facts" cited by landotter. What facts do you think he's
cited? I must have missed them.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

The Wogster wrote:

> As for Detroit, suppose you build a car, and you make 75,000 of them,
> and you find, that in an extremely rare situation, the car will explode.
> You know that the number of cars that will explode per year is, 10,
> you can fix the problem in a recall, but it costs $2,500 per car to fix.
> So the cost of law suits because of exploding cars is, $15,000,000 per
> year, for the 10 years the car will last, total cost $150,000,000 or you
> can fix the problem, but it will cost $187,500,000 total. Forget
> conscience, you can save $37,500,000 by letting people die in exploding
> cars. Yes, this did really happen.

Your argument would be more honest, albeit less convincing, if instead
of citing bogus numbers you took the time to discover the basic facts.

1) IIRC, there were about 100 incidents of Pinto gas tanks "exploding
upon relatively low speed impact". About 75% of those allegedly "low
speed" impacts were rear end collisions between a vehicle traveling at
30+ mph and a *stationary* Pinto. Calling those "relatively low speed
impacts" is like calling Mario Cippolini "relatively" slow. Relative to
who? (Please note bicycling content.)
2) In over half of the "gas tank explosions" the vehicle's gas cap was
MIA and the vehicles' owners had replaced that cap with a RAG *before*
the crash. If you happen to have a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook"
laying around, look up "Molotov Cocktail". ;-)
3) I was working as a mechanic at a Ford dealership during the Pinto
"exploding gas tank" recall. The modifications that the recall required
consisted of were two-fold: replacement of the fuel tank filler neck
with a longer filler neck that extended further into the tank and
installation of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and
the rear seat back. The entire recall paid less than one hour in labor
(the prevailing rate in the Midwest at that time was $14.00 per hour)
and the parts were billed out at about $50 IIRC. Ford allowed a 0.2
labor hour charge for processing. What that all translates to is that
it cost Ford roughly $66.80 per unit in the Midwest, a far cry from
your $2500 figure. You can of course argue that the lower cost to
perform the "repairs" means that Ford valued lives that much more
cheaply but that argument wouldn't change the fact that you've either
bought a bill of goods about the recall or are simply making up numbers
to suit your purpose.
IOW, no- it really *didn't* happen.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

P.S.- In case you are wondering, I hated the Pinto. It was a crappy
little underpowered rattletrap POS. (Apologies in advance to any former
Pinto owners.)

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > But comparing two posters, if one gives _only_ insults and wisecracks
> > while the other uses insults, wisecracks, facts and explanations, the
> > second poster is exhibiting more intelligence. He's probably going to
> > be more persuasive than the first guy....
>
> Why I disagree with you on this:
>
> 1) That insults and downright libelous assertions have become
> commonplace in political discussions here or elsewhere does not change
> their character from insulting and libelous to "intelligent and
> rational".

To split hairs, I didn't actually say landotter's posts actually were
intelligent and rational. I merely said they were _more_ so than
Sorni's & di's. ;-)

But I'll point out, you're attempting a false dichotomy. A given post
(or given person) can simultaneously be insulting, libelous,
intelligent and rational. Landotter clearly got mad and spouted off.
But his posts were an order of magnitude more substantive than the
other two's.

> 2) There are rare and isolated instances where a Usenet post may indeed
> change someone's opinion on a particular subject but they are just
> that, isolated and rare.

Perhaps so, if you mean one particular post. But in general, extended
discussion and presentation of facts can and do make a difference,
whether on Usenet or elsewhere. This is one of the reasons that
people's minds change. (It's one of the reasons our Iraqi adventure is
much less popular than it once was, like it or not.)


> 3) I re-read all of his posts in this thread and could identify no
> objective "facts" cited by landotter. What facts do you think he's
> cited? I must have missed them.

If that's the case, you must be filtering through your own
preconceptions.

At the _very_ least, when landotter told about his personal beliefs and
behavior (eating meat, not belonging to PETA, etc) we can assume those
are factual. HIs statement that we didn't catch Bin Laden is a fact.
His statement that invading Afghanistan was a good idea is perhaps
debatable in the eyes of some, but I accept it as a fact. And even if
the "good idea" judgement somehow turned out to be wrong, it qualifies
as an explanation.

Whether or not you like his explanations, whether or not you believe
all his facts, you must admit, he's giving us more than we're getting
from Sorni and di.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] writes:

> Whether or not you like his explanations, whether or not you believe
> all his facts, you must admit, he's giving us more than we're getting
> from Sorni and di.

I'm still interested in learning what's going on with your (the USA's)
federal government's support (or lack thereof) of alternative energy R&D,
after the STOTUA and the "America is addicted to oil" thing.

I came across this site:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/02/BUGINH17FL1.DTL

but it leaves much open to political interpretation, and suspiciously
sounds like a lead-up to [the promotion of un-"sustainable"] nukes.

Y'know, I used to hear about how the USSR was amassing vast reserves
of gold, diamonds and OIL with which to flood the markets and kick
the slats out of the Western Economies when the timing was right.

hmmmmm ...


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[The Wogster]

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] writes:
>
>
>>Whether or not you like his explanations, whether or not you believe
>>all his facts, you must admit, he's giving us more than we're getting
>>from Sorni and di.
>
>
> I'm still interested in learning what's going on with your (the USA's)
> federal government's support (or lack thereof) of alternative energy R&D,
> after the STOTUA and the "America is addicted to oil" thing.
>
> I came across this site:
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/02/BUGINH17FL1.DTL
>
> but it leaves much open to political interpretation, and suspiciously
> sounds like a lead-up to [the promotion of un-"sustainable"] nukes.
>
> Y'know, I used to hear about how the USSR was amassing vast reserves
> of gold, diamonds and OIL with which to flood the markets and kick
> the slats out of the Western Economies when the timing was right.
>

Other then solar and wind power, the others are not really sustainable
long term, and that includes nukes. The problem isn't gasoline, it's
that your feeding it into the least efficient means of moving a person
from one place to another. Take the gasoline engine, it converts most
of the energy it uses into heat, which must then be removed. IIRC the
gasoline engine turns 20% of it's input energy into locomotive power.
Diesel engines aren't any better, just diesel has more energy per unit.
Converting either one to hydrogen, ethanol or vegetable oil doesn't
make it more efficient, just changes the fuel supply. Do we make enough
waste plant material to convert to either ethanol or vegetable oil, and
are there better uses for that plant material. Farmers plow most of it
back into the ground, so that the nutrients can be used for next years
growth, if we remove that, we need much more artificial fertalizer,
which comes from oil.

Nuclear has it's own problems, it creates dangerous toxic waste, and
has a finite fuel supply. Once all of the usable uranium is mined and
processed, nuclear is done, but we are stuck with it's toxic waste for
the next million years or so. Will 25 generations hence appreciate that
they are still dealing with our nuclear waste, when there is no more
nuclear power to be had?

What is needed is a shift from inefficient energy use, to efficient
energy use, where the amount of energy needed is much less. On the
transportation side, the bicycle is the most efficient method of moving
a person around. Mass transit is far behind, but still massively better
then a big SUV that carries one person, along city streets to work and back.

W

 

[Stephen Harding]

Paul Turner wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>>And no new refineries have been built in 20 years. I'm sure
>>the oil companies would love to build a few more though,
>>given the near inelastic demand for the stuff in the US.
>
> If demand for a product is inelastic, then it is irrational to build
> expensive capacity to supply more of that product. To say that demand is
> highly inelastic means that demand is almost constant regardless of price.
> In other words, it would take a large increase in price to convince people
> use less and a large reduction in price to convince people to use more. Why
> should an existing producer spend money to add capacity if people will not
> consume the extra production without a large reduction in price?

Perhaps I'm misusing the terms then.

I think it has been shown that despite the large price increases of
2005, oil consumption didn't really fall off much. The price
obviously still isn't high enough for people to start looking for
ways to economize in oil consumption.

In fact, evidence is people were economizing in other areas so as
to maintain their oil consumption rates.

Given that the US is such a car-centric society, oil consumption
is almost a necessity. You need to burn oil to get to work. There
aren't viable alternatives in a good part of the country, and of
course in the north, skimping on the thermostat setting can cost
you big in frozen pipes and such.

The number of people goes up, the number of cars go up and as far
as I have read, the demand hasn't fallen off and continues to rise
despite the big price jumps.

Build another refinery and you will make more money, at least
initially until supply over-reaches demand. I believe I read that
US refineries are pretty much running at max capacity.

Of course we all know on the world market, demand is very much on
the rise so crude prices aren't going to go down, especially with the
Chinese economy growing at 10%+ a year and is out to secure it's own
oil sources.

AFAIK, American refineries produce petroleum products for US consumption
not for export. But I'm not certain about that.


SMH

 

[Peter Cole]

Bob wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>
>>As for Detroit, suppose you build a car, and you make 75,000 of them,
>>and you find, that in an extremely rare situation, the car will explode.
>> You know that the number of cars that will explode per year is, 10,
>>you can fix the problem in a recall, but it costs $2,500 per car to fix.
>>So the cost of law suits because of exploding cars is, $15,000,000 per
>>year, for the 10 years the car will last, total cost $150,000,000 or you
>>can fix the problem, but it will cost $187,500,000 total. Forget
>>conscience, you can save $37,500,000 by letting people die in exploding
>>cars. Yes, this did really happen.
>
>
> Your argument would be more honest, albeit less convincing, if instead
> of citing bogus numbers you took the time to discover the basic facts.
>
> 1) IIRC, there were about 100 incidents of Pinto gas tanks "exploding
> upon relatively low speed impact". About 75% of those allegedly "low
> speed" impacts were rear end collisions between a vehicle traveling at
> 30+ mph and a *stationary* Pinto. Calling those "relatively low speed
> impacts" is like calling Mario Cippolini "relatively" slow. Relative to
> who? (Please note bicycling content.)
> 2) In over half of the "gas tank explosions" the vehicle's gas cap was
> MIA and the vehicles' owners had replaced that cap with a RAG *before*
> the crash. If you happen to have a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook"
> laying around, look up "Molotov Cocktail". ;-)
> 3) I was working as a mechanic at a Ford dealership during the Pinto
> "exploding gas tank" recall. The modifications that the recall required
> consisted of were two-fold: replacement of the fuel tank filler neck
> with a longer filler neck that extended further into the tank and
> installation of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and
> the rear seat back. The entire recall paid less than one hour in labor
> (the prevailing rate in the Midwest at that time was $14.00 per hour)
> and the parts were billed out at about $50 IIRC. Ford allowed a 0.2
> labor hour charge for processing. What that all translates to is that
> it cost Ford roughly $66.80 per unit in the Midwest, a far cry from
> your $2500 figure. You can of course argue that the lower cost to
> perform the "repairs" means that Ford valued lives that much more
> cheaply but that argument wouldn't change the fact that you've either
> bought a bill of goods about the recall or are simply making up numbers
> to suit your purpose.
> IOW, no- it really *didn't* happen.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Hunt
>
> P.S.- In case you are wondering, I hated the Pinto. It was a crappy
> little underpowered rattletrap POS. (Apologies in advance to any former
> Pinto owners.)
>

I think both of you guys are wrong. If you read the details of one of
the famous trials:
<http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/119CA3d757.htm>
you'll see that the issue was one of a *known* (pre-production)
sub-standard design that was given a pass for economic reasons. The
Pinto failed internal rear crash tests at 20 mph, before it was in
production. The main problem was that the rear body was weak and the gas
tank was aft of the rear axle. It was estimated that the cost of
strengthening the rear was about $9/vehicle at time of production (not
after sale).

Doing the math, there were around 2M Pintos made, so the total costs
would have been around $18M. There were 27 fatalities (+24 non-fatal
burn victims) from 1971-1977, according to NHTSA figures from Pinto rear
end fires. The Pinto was built from 1971-1980. FARS data for 1975-76
showed that Pinto fatality rate from rear-end fire was double the
average. Very roughly speaking, that put a value of around $500K for an
avoidable burn death.

As much as it bothers some people, there has to be some economic
argument for safety, which comes down to putting an actual value on a
human life -- that's reality. I think this argument is not the same as
producing a product with a known safety defect as severe as the Pinto
fuel tank. The public will never know the amount paid out in settlements
over Pinto suits. In the Grimshaw case, the wrongful death award was
$560K, and the surviving burn victim got $6M. The decision to go into
production with a known bad design was (probably) an economic mistake,
but likely not a severe one, since the Pinto likely generated profits in
the $500M range for Ford. Ethically, it was a monstrous choice.

 

[Bob]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > The Wogster wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As for Detroit, suppose you build a car, and you make 75,000 of them,
> >>and you find, that in an extremely rare situation, the car will explode.
> >> You know that the number of cars that will explode per year is, 10,
> >>you can fix the problem in a recall, but it costs $2,500 per car to fix.
> >>So the cost of law suits because of exploding cars is, $15,000,000 per
> >>year, for the 10 years the car will last, total cost $150,000,000 or you
> >>can fix the problem, but it will cost $187,500,000 total. Forget
> >>conscience, you can save $37,500,000 by letting people die in exploding
> >>cars. Yes, this did really happen.
> >
> >
> > Your argument would be more honest, albeit less convincing, if instead
> > of citing bogus numbers you took the time to discover the basic facts.
> >
> > 1) IIRC, there were about 100 incidents of Pinto gas tanks "exploding
> > upon relatively low speed impact". About 75% of those allegedly "low
> > speed" impacts were rear end collisions between a vehicle traveling at
> > 30+ mph and a *stationary* Pinto. Calling those "relatively low speed
> > impacts" is like calling Mario Cippolini "relatively" slow. Relative to
> > who? (Please note bicycling content.)
> > 2) In over half of the "gas tank explosions" the vehicle's gas cap was
> > MIA and the vehicles' owners had replaced that cap with a RAG *before*
> > the crash. If you happen to have a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook"
> > laying around, look up "Molotov Cocktail". ;-)
> > 3) I was working as a mechanic at a Ford dealership during the Pinto
> > "exploding gas tank" recall. The modifications that the recall required
> > consisted of were two-fold: replacement of the fuel tank filler neck
> > with a longer filler neck that extended further into the tank and
> > installation of a plastic shield between the front of the fuel tank and
> > the rear seat back. The entire recall paid less than one hour in labor
> > (the prevailing rate in the Midwest at that time was $14.00 per hour)
> > and the parts were billed out at about $50 IIRC. Ford allowed a 0.2
> > labor hour charge for processing. What that all translates to is that
> > it cost Ford roughly $66.80 per unit in the Midwest, a far cry from
> > your $2500 figure. You can of course argue that the lower cost to
> > perform the "repairs" means that Ford valued lives that much more
> > cheaply but that argument wouldn't change the fact that you've either
> > bought a bill of goods about the recall or are simply making up numbers
> > to suit your purpose.
> > IOW, no- it really *didn't* happen.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bob Hunt
> >
> > P.S.- In case you are wondering, I hated the Pinto. It was a crappy
> > little underpowered rattletrap POS. (Apologies in advance to any former
> > Pinto owners.)
> >
>
> I think both of you guys are wrong. If you read the details of one of
> the famous trials:
> <http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/119CA3d757.htm>
> you'll see that the issue was one of a *known* (pre-production)
> sub-standard design that was given a pass for economic reasons. The
> Pinto failed internal rear crash tests at 20 mph, before it was in
> production. The main problem was that the rear body was weak and the gas
> tank was aft of the rear axle. It was estimated that the cost of
> strengthening the rear was about $9/vehicle at time of production (not
> after sale).
>
> Doing the math, there were around 2M Pintos made, so the total costs
> would have been around $18M. There were 27 fatalities (+24 non-fatal
> burn victims) from 1971-1977, according to NHTSA figures from Pinto rear
> end fires. The Pinto was built from 1971-1980. FARS data for 1975-76
> showed that Pinto fatality rate from rear-end fire was double the
> average. Very roughly speaking, that put a value of around $500K for an
> avoidable burn death.
>
> As much as it bothers some people, there has to be some economic
> argument for safety, which comes down to putting an actual value on a
> human life -- that's reality. I think this argument is not the same as
> producing a product with a known safety defect as severe as the Pinto
> fuel tank. The public will never know the amount paid out in settlements
> over Pinto suits. In the Grimshaw case, the wrongful death award was
> $560K, and the surviving burn victim got $6M. The decision to go into
> production with a known bad design was (probably) an economic mistake,
> but likely not a severe one, since the Pinto likely generated profits in
> the $500M range for Ford. Ethically, it was a monstrous choice.

I agree that the decision to cut these particular corners was/is
indefensible and I'll accept the 51 dead and injured totals you give.
As for the dollar amounts to *avoid* producing a defective product
though, the approximately $67 figure I gave was what the ultimate cost
per unit to *repair* the defect ended up being in the Midwest US. It's
always more expensive to repair a design defect after a product is
built than it would have been to build the thing right initially.
Just as an aside, Lee Iaccoca was the president of Ford at the time and
is usually "credited" as the driving force behind the Pinto. Later when
he went to Chrysler he turned that company around by begging the feds
to bail it out. Now he's a best selling author and senior statesman of
the auto industry. I guess he's proof of A. Lincoln's dictum that you
can fool some of the people all of the time. <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:

quoting me:

> > 3) I re-read all of his posts in this thread and could identify no
> > objective "facts" cited by landotter. What facts do you think he's
> > cited? I must have missed them.
>
> If that's the case, you must be filtering through your own
> preconceptions.
>
> At the _very_ least, when landotter told about his personal beliefs and
> behavior (eating meat, not belonging to PETA, etc) we can assume those
> are factual. HIs statement that we didn't catch Bin Laden is a fact.
> His statement that invading Afghanistan was a good idea is perhaps
> debatable in the eyes of some, but I accept it as a fact. And even if
> the "good idea" judgement somehow turned out to be wrong, it qualifies
> as an explanation.
>
> Whether or not you like his explanations, whether or not you believe
> all his facts, you must admit, he's giving us more than we're getting
> from Sorni and di.

You claim I'm "attempting a false dichotomy" and then produce *this* as
citing facts?!? Does the term "non sequitor" ring any bells? <g>

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Peter Cole]

Bob wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>>As much as it bothers some people, there has to be some economic
>>argument for safety, which comes down to putting an actual value on a
>>human life -- that's reality. I think this argument is not the same as
>>producing a product with a known safety defect as severe as the Pinto
>>fuel tank. The public will never know the amount paid out in settlements
>>over Pinto suits. In the Grimshaw case, the wrongful death award was
>>$560K, and the surviving burn victim got $6M. The decision to go into
>>production with a known bad design was (probably) an economic mistake,
>>but likely not a severe one, since the Pinto likely generated profits in
>>the $500M range for Ford. Ethically, it was a monstrous choice.
>
>
> I agree that the decision to cut these particular corners was/is
> indefensible and I'll accept the 51 dead and injured totals you give.
> As for the dollar amounts to *avoid* producing a defective product
> though, the approximately $67 figure I gave was what the ultimate cost
> per unit to *repair* the defect ended up being in the Midwest US. It's
> always more expensive to repair a design defect after a product is
> built than it would have been to build the thing right initially.

This is generally true, but it's certain that the $67 recall fix was
much less effective than the $9 production fix. The point I was trying
to make was that, in the case of both the Pinto and Corvair, there were
known serious design flaws (before production) that had relatively low
costs to fix. The industry is obviously not self-policing, and
government agencies are always vulnerable to political pressure which
often has its roots in corporate profit interests. The whistle blowers
like Nader are often painted as left-wing anti-business crusaders, but
making that case usually requires a historical rewrite. With consumer
advocates controlling the tiniest fraction of resources relative to
business interests it will always be a lopsided fight. The fears of a
"nanny state" are misplaced.


> Just as an aside, Lee Iaccoca was the president of Ford at the time and
> is usually "credited" as the driving force behind the Pinto. Later when
> he went to Chrysler he turned that company around by begging the feds
> to bail it out. Now he's a best selling author and senior statesman of
> the auto industry. I guess he's proof of A. Lincoln's dictum that you
> can fool some of the people all of the time. <g>

The story I read was that the Pinto was rushed into production with (as
is often the case) the engineering taking a back seat to the style
envelope. The choice was made not to revise the design after internal
tests revealed the flaws. That decision apparently was made at the top.
Iaccoca ain't my hero, Nader is.

 

[[email protected]]

Bob wrote:
>
> You claim I'm "attempting a false dichotomy" and then produce *this* as
> citing facts?!? Does the term "non sequitor" ring any bells? <g>

Vocabulary time.

"False dichotomy" refers to pretending things are mutually exclusive,
when they're not - as in, pretending a person who's angry can't be
presenting facts. That's false. A person can be very angry, and yet
be perfectly factual.

Correctness of facts and correctness of judgements are other matters.
They should be evaluated separately and (ideally) not influenced by a
presenter's mood.

"Non sequitur" refers to a conclusion that isn't justified by the facts
- i.e. an output that doesn't follow from the inputs. I don't believe
that's pertinent in this case.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Mark Hickey]

Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:

>The story I read was that the Pinto was rushed into production with (as
>is often the case) the engineering taking a back seat to the style
>envelope.

Hard to imagine why it wasn't prettier then, huh? ;-)

>The choice was made not to revise the design after internal
>tests revealed the flaws. That decision apparently was made at the top.
>Iaccoca ain't my hero, Nader is.

Seems to me that neither of 'em exactly qualify for sainthood. One of
them understated the danger to the detriment of some customers, and
the other overstated the danger to the detriment of the US auto
industry (which has cost all of us a lot over the years - imagine if
lighter, more efficient vehicles would have caught on in Detroit 10
years before they became "necessary").

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[The Wogster]

Bob wrote:
> The Wogster wrote:
>
>
>>As for Detroit, suppose you build a car, and you make 75,000 of them,
>>and you find, that in an extremely rare situation, the car will explode.
>> You know that the number of cars that will explode per year is, 10,
>>you can fix the problem in a recall, but it costs $2,500 per car to fix.
>>So the cost of law suits because of exploding cars is, $15,000,000 per
>>year, for the 10 years the car will last, total cost $150,000,000 or you
>>can fix the problem, but it will cost $187,500,000 total. Forget
>>conscience, you can save $37,500,000 by letting people die in exploding
>>cars. Yes, this did really happen.
>
>
> Your argument would be more honest, albeit less convincing, if instead
> of citing bogus numbers you took the time to discover the basic facts.

I never said Pinto, you ASSUMED I meant the Pinto, but I never actually
said it was the Pinto I was refering to (It wasn't, this was purely
hypothetical).

W

 

[Bob]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > You claim I'm "attempting a false dichotomy" and then produce *this* as
> > citing facts?!? Does the term "non sequitor" ring any bells? <g>
>
> Vocabulary time.
>
> "False dichotomy" refers to pretending things are mutually exclusive,
> when they're not - as in, pretending a person who's angry can't be
> presenting facts. That's false. A person can be very angry, and yet
> be perfectly factual.
>
> Correctness of facts and correctness of judgements are other matters.
> They should be evaluated separately and (ideally) not influenced by a
> presenter's mood.
>
> "Non sequitur" refers to a conclusion that isn't justified by the facts
> - i.e. an output that doesn't follow from the inputs. I don't believe
> that's pertinent in this case.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Don't condescend, Frank. To say a statement is a non sequitor is to say
that its component parts are unrelated to each other. You said that a
particular poster cited facts and the obvious inference to be drawn
from that is you believe that those alleged facts somehow had a bearing
on the topic at hand. When I asked, "What facts?", you didn't answer me
directly but instead accused me of filtering the facts presented
through my own preconceptions so I'll ask again- what objective facts
in those posts supported in any way the conclusions drawn?

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Bob]

The Wogster wrote:
> I never said Pinto, you ASSUMED I meant the Pinto, but I never actually
> said it was the Pinto I was refering to (It wasn't, this was purely
> hypothetical).

Ah, a "purely" hypothetical. IOW, total ******** absolutely unrelated
to anything in the real world. Thanks for the clarification.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

 

[Zoot Katz]

On 7 Feb 2006 21:27:08 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>To split hairs, I didn't actually say landotter's posts actually were
>intelligent and rational. I merely said they were _more_ so than
>Sorni's & di's. ;-)

Any turnip could compose a post more intelligent, rational or, in
Sorni's case, even more intelligible, than the cited authors.

Those Freeper asswipes just regurgitate the SOS their god, W, spewed
yesterday. They should all suffer near-death forty times over.
--
zk

 

[Zoot Katz]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:56:00 GMT, "Gooserider"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:zcqFf.7871$%[email protected]...
>> gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Power has very little to do with fuel economy. Weight does. There are
>>> plenty of 4 cylinder cars with BLISTERING performance and a lot of power
>>> that get good gas mileage. Subaru WRX, Dodge Neon SRT-4, Mitsubishi EVO,
>>> Toyota Celica, Honda Accord V6, Nissan Maxima, etc. Too many vehicles are
>>> too BIG.
>> That BLISTERING performance means they are way overpowered.
>>
>If they get good mileage what does it matter? Cars with low horsepower are
>not fun to drive, and can be unsafe.
>
Then park or scrap the POS. Don't take it on the road, addict.
--
zk