Fat people? Less gas!



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!

--
Jerry "Heh, heh! I said 'imbue'!" Bauer
 
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!

--
Jerry "Heh, heh! I said 'imbue'!" Bauer
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle?

>
>Low price, low cost parking, cheap secure storage (I keep my favorite
>bicycle in my bedroom).


If that's all that important to you, I guess. I have a two-acre lot
and a four-car garage. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space.
My truck is paid for and I never pay to park anywhere.


>
>> Is it worth putting your life at risk by bicycling through traffic?

>
>The risk is way overstated - cycling is not dangerous compared to other
>everyday activities.


I rode motorcycles for over 30 years. I've had three friends killed,
everyone I know has been injured, and I've been damn near killed
twice. And I wouldn't ride a bicycle in traffic.

>
>More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.


But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
rarely cyclist-friendly.

>
>> Rather than repeatedly telling me how I might do things differently
>> (i.e. "your way:") you might just assume that my circumstances are
>> such that what I do makes perfect sense to me and is the optimal
>> solution for me.

>
>There are two groups of people - cyclists and non-cyclists.


But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle?

>
>Low price, low cost parking, cheap secure storage (I keep my favorite
>bicycle in my bedroom).


If that's all that important to you, I guess. I have a two-acre lot
and a four-car garage. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space.
My truck is paid for and I never pay to park anywhere.


>
>> Is it worth putting your life at risk by bicycling through traffic?

>
>The risk is way overstated - cycling is not dangerous compared to other
>everyday activities.


I rode motorcycles for over 30 years. I've had three friends killed,
everyone I know has been injured, and I've been damn near killed
twice. And I wouldn't ride a bicycle in traffic.

>
>More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.


But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
rarely cyclist-friendly.

>
>> Rather than repeatedly telling me how I might do things differently
>> (i.e. "your way:") you might just assume that my circumstances are
>> such that what I do makes perfect sense to me and is the optimal
>> solution for me.

>
>There are two groups of people - cyclists and non-cyclists.


But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>> You are kidding, right? What's practical about a bicycle?

>
>Low price, low cost parking, cheap secure storage (I keep my favorite
>bicycle in my bedroom).


If that's all that important to you, I guess. I have a two-acre lot
and a four-car garage. I'm not terribly concerned about storage space.
My truck is paid for and I never pay to park anywhere.


>
>> Is it worth putting your life at risk by bicycling through traffic?

>
>The risk is way overstated - cycling is not dangerous compared to other
>everyday activities.


I rode motorcycles for over 30 years. I've had three friends killed,
everyone I know has been injured, and I've been damn near killed
twice. And I wouldn't ride a bicycle in traffic.

>
>More people in the world commute by bicycle than by personal motor vehicle.


But we don't live in that world. We live in this country, which is
rarely cyclist-friendly.

>
>> Rather than repeatedly telling me how I might do things differently
>> (i.e. "your way:") you might just assume that my circumstances are
>> such that what I do makes perfect sense to me and is the optimal
>> solution for me.

>
>There are two groups of people - cyclists and non-cyclists.


But us non-cyclists don't seem to proselytize to the cyclists.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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?


About forty years. Let me know when you get there.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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?


About forty years. Let me know when you get there.
 
Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>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?


About forty years. Let me know when you get there.
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> 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.


So one out of every 75 auto/auto accidents results in a fatality, eh?


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> 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.


So one out of every 75 auto/auto accidents results in a fatality, eh?


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Zoot Katz wrote:
> 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.


So one out of every 75 auto/auto accidents results in a fatality, eh?


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
 
Tom Sherman 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.
>

Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
at the local truck weigh station.

Charles
 
Tom Sherman 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.
>

Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
at the local truck weigh station.

Charles
 
Tom Sherman 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.
>

Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
at the local truck weigh station.

Charles
 
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


>> 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.
>>

> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.


You're our kind of man, Charles.


Lee "Books? Oh, we got books..." Ayrton


--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
 
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


>> 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.
>>

> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.


You're our kind of man, Charles.


Lee "Books? Oh, we got books..." Ayrton


--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
 
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:

> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:


>> 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.
>>

> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.


You're our kind of man, Charles.


Lee "Books? Oh, we got books..." Ayrton


--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.