Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was
>>>>> still
>>>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs,
>>>>> points and
>>>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every
>>>>> few
>>>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>>>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>>>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>>>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>> A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
>>
>> That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
>
> Well, Bob, let's see what you wrote farther up, in context:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/ff9571506f10cab0
> [begin quote -- attribution marks as in the original]------------------
>
>>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>
>> Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>
>> Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>> those stupid motorized seatbelts.
>
> Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
> friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
> forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
> current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
> years.
>
> Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
> policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
> appraisals and comparables to support it.
> [end quote]-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
> "proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
> "better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
> omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
> comparison....
Indeed. I doubt even the most die-hard Chevy fanatic would claim that a
1995 Chevy would hold up to 40+ years of regular commuting use, with
just regular maintenance.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:19:55 -0500, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is
>>nothing once you get in shape?
>
>You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle? How much
>cargo can you carry on a bicycle? Is it worth putting your life at
>risk by bicycling through traffic? At age 61 and tethered to an oxygen
>concentrator, I'm not likely to ever get in shape for bicycle riding.
I have a bicycle that's designed to carry 200 lbs. in addition to my
weight. The miracle of ball bearings make humans on bicycles the most
thermodynamically efficient machine or animal on the planet.
Bicycling is statistically safer than walking down stairs. Your odds
of dying in a bike/car crash are 71:1 compared to a mere 75:1 in a
car/car crash.
I'll take those odds if it helps me avoid ever having to haul around
one of those oxygen concentrator rigs.
How long since you last biked until you got the oxygen concentrator?
--
zk
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:02:16 -0500, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> >>> In any event, who said I was williing to
>>> >>> spend $20 to drive across town? My strategy has been, and will
>>> >>> continue to be, to reduce driving in answer to rising fuel costs. I'm
>>> >>> self employed, I have no commute, virtually all my driving is
>>> >>> discretionary.
>>> >>>
>>> >> How would you go about getting your bread?
>>> >
>>> > Jesus, Bill, think about it. *You* created the "$20 for bread" straw
>>> > man. Everything *I* need is within a five mile radius of my house and
>>> > most errands are within two miles. The nearest supermarket is within
>>> > easy walking distance. I used to make a point of going out every day,
>>> > just to get out of the house. Since the cost of gas has gone up, I
>>> > only go out a couple of times a week and bundle all my errands for
>>> > those trips. I currently drive about 6k miles per year. I used to put
>>> > on a couple of thousand driving to visit family, but my mother died
>>> > last December, so now I won't need to put those miles on any more.
>>>
>>> How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is
>>> nothing once you get in shape?
>>>
>>In the snow?
>
>Uphill both ways?
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:19:55 -0500, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is
>>nothing once you get in shape?
>
>You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle? How much
>cargo can you carry on a bicycle? Is it worth putting your life at
>risk by bicycling through traffic? At age 61 and tethered to an oxygen
>concentrator, I'm not likely to ever get in shape for bicycle riding.
I have a bicycle that's designed to carry 200 lbs. in addition to my
weight. The miracle of ball bearings make humans on bicycles the most
thermodynamically efficient machine or animal on the planet.
Bicycling is statistically safer than walking down stairs. Your odds
of dying in a bike/car crash are 71:1 compared to a mere 75:1 in a
car/car crash.
I'll take those odds if it helps me avoid ever having to haul around
one of those oxygen concentrator rigs.
How long since you last biked until you got the oxygen concentrator?
--
zk
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:02:16 -0500, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> >>> In any event, who said I was williing to
>>> >>> spend $20 to drive across town? My strategy has been, and will
>>> >>> continue to be, to reduce driving in answer to rising fuel costs. I'm
>>> >>> self employed, I have no commute, virtually all my driving is
>>> >>> discretionary.
>>> >>>
>>> >> How would you go about getting your bread?
>>> >
>>> > Jesus, Bill, think about it. *You* created the "$20 for bread" straw
>>> > man. Everything *I* need is within a five mile radius of my house and
>>> > most errands are within two miles. The nearest supermarket is within
>>> > easy walking distance. I used to make a point of going out every day,
>>> > just to get out of the house. Since the cost of gas has gone up, I
>>> > only go out a couple of times a week and bundle all my errands for
>>> > those trips. I currently drive about 6k miles per year. I used to put
>>> > on a couple of thousand driving to visit family, but my mother died
>>> > last December, so now I won't need to put those miles on any more.
>>>
>>> How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is
>>> nothing once you get in shape?
>>>
>>In the snow?
>
>Uphill both ways?
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:19:55 -0500, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is
>>nothing once you get in shape?
>
>You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle? How much
>cargo can you carry on a bicycle? Is it worth putting your life at
>risk by bicycling through traffic? At age 61 and tethered to an oxygen
>concentrator, I'm not likely to ever get in shape for bicycle riding.
I have a bicycle that's designed to carry 200 lbs. in addition to my
weight. The miracle of ball bearings make humans on bicycles the most
thermodynamically efficient machine or animal on the planet.
Bicycling is statistically safer than walking down stairs. Your odds
of dying in a bike/car crash are 71:1 compared to a mere 75:1 in a
car/car crash.
I'll take those odds if it helps me avoid ever having to haul around
one of those oxygen concentrator rigs.
How long since you last biked until you got the oxygen concentrator?
--
zk
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:02:16 -0500, Richard Evans
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> >>> In any event, who said I was williing to
>>> >>> spend $20 to drive across town? My strategy has been, and will
>>> >>> continue to be, to reduce driving in answer to rising fuel costs. I'm
>>> >>> self employed, I have no commute, virtually all my driving is
>>> >>> discretionary.
>>> >>>
>>> >> How would you go about getting your bread?
>>> >
>>> > Jesus, Bill, think about it. *You* created the "$20 for bread" straw
>>> > man. Everything *I* need is within a five mile radius of my house and
>>> > most errands are within two miles. The nearest supermarket is within
>>> > easy walking distance. I used to make a point of going out every day,
>>> > just to get out of the house. Since the cost of gas has gone up, I
>>> > only go out a couple of times a week and bundle all my errands for
>>> > those trips. I currently drive about 6k miles per year. I used to put
>>> > on a couple of thousand driving to visit family, but my mother died
>>> > last December, so now I won't need to put those miles on any more.
>>>
>>> How about a practical bicycle for errands - a ten mile round trip is
>>> nothing once you get in shape?
>>>
>>In the snow?
>
>Uphill both ways?
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bob Ward wrote:
> >>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
> >>> reliable.
> >> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
> >> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
> >> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
> > Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bob Ward wrote:
> >>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
> >>> reliable.
> >> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
> >> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
> >> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
> > Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Bob Ward wrote:
> >>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
> >>> reliable.
> >> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
> >> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
> >> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
> > Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>> that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>> times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>> interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>> you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
>
> While pulling a trailer?
>
> Thanks for confirming your stupidity.
>
Ever drive I-80 across Iowa and Nebraska? Convoys of semis going 80+
mph. Insane, actually.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>> that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>> times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>> interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>> you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
>
> While pulling a trailer?
>
> Thanks for confirming your stupidity.
>
Ever drive I-80 across Iowa and Nebraska? Convoys of semis going 80+
mph. Insane, actually.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>> that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>> times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>> interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>> you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
>
> While pulling a trailer?
>
> Thanks for confirming your stupidity.
>
Ever drive I-80 across Iowa and Nebraska? Convoys of semis going 80+
mph. Insane, actually.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
[email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>>>> reliable.
>>>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
>>>> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
>>>> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>
> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>
Tell that to the Weschler people.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
[email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>>>> reliable.
>>>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
>>>> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
>>>> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>
> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>
Tell that to the Weschler people.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
[email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>>>> reliable.
>>>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
>>>> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
>>>> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>
> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>
Tell that to the Weschler people.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Richard Evans wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>> because it's a place to store it?
> >> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>
> > About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> > that and odd sized loads....
>
> Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Richard Evans wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>> because it's a place to store it?
> >> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>
> > About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> > that and odd sized loads....
>
> Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
On Nov 8, 10:32 pm, Tom Sherman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>
>
> > Richard Evans wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>> because it's a place to store it?
> >> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>
> > About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> > that and odd sized loads....
>
> Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:30:42 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> [email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
>>>>> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
>>>>> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>>
>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>>
> Tell that to the Weschler people.
>
>
Hey, Weschler people! Arguing on Usenet does not magically imbue Tom
Sherman with intelligence!