If you don't believe in Evolution, then why do you drive an SUV?

[donquijote1954]

No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil, which is the byproduct of animal species (which weren't saved
by Noah's Ark) and plants that lived hundreds of millions of years
ago, way before man, and, of course, way before the short-lived Earth
that the Bible tells us about...

"So given that oil is unique, precious and without serious
substitutes, and given that we use it as wastefully as water - which
will be the subject of another letter, oil must surely be a limitless
and renewable resource, more or less falling from the sky, or at least
welling up munificently underground, waiting to burst forth in black
plumes and fill our lives and SUVs with boundless and endless vigour.

Except of course, that like the tale of the bottomless wallet, this is
a piece of fiction. Oil obviously doesn't fall from the sky, but nor
does it endlessly well up from the ancient interior of the Earth. It
was created, in distinct, separate and rare bursts, under highly
unusual conditions in just a few places, over the last two hundred
million years. Moreover, most of it has long since leaked away or
become degraded and contaminated and very hard to recover. Meanwhile
the easy stuff which is left from these rare geological moments is
being used up at a simply colossal rate by humans everywhere, but most
of all by those of us in the world of hyper-consumption."

http://www.letterfromearth.org/index.php?letter=letterfromearth.01.v1-3

So, don't be a hypocrite and get your ass off that SUV because it runs
on Evolution itself. You belong on that donkey that Jesus rode. Or at
least GO AND RIDE A BIKE.

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1

[Just A User]

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

[The immortal Khan]

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cncorn113.xml

and so on....

tik

[David Kerber]

In article <fltk3v$f2n$***@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, ***@blueyonder.co.uk
says...

Post by The immortal Khan

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....

Using corn as the source for ethanol is just an interim step to much
more economical sources, mainly high-cellulose items such as switch
grass, sawdust, etc.

[donquijote1954]

Post by David Kerber
says...

Post by The immortal Khan

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....

Using corn as the source for ethanol is just an interim step to much
more economical sources, mainly high-cellulose items such as switch
grass, sawdust, etc.

The more economical source is when they start running on bull shit.
Imagine all the crap cows leave behind, not to say what people say in
politics and organized religion.

[ilaboo]

The more economical source is when they start running on bull shit.
Imagine all the crap cows leave behind, not to say what people say in
politics and organized religion.

politicians and lots of religious leaders only reflect the society as does
this usenet--so what do you expect?

fwiw
peter

[marc]

Post by donquijote1954
The more economical source is when they start running on bull shit.
Imagine all the crap cows leave behind, not to say what people say in
politics and organized religion.
politicians and lots of religious leaders only reflect the society as does
this usenet--so what do you expect?

I expect correct netiquette and for a reply to contain some idea of what
is being replied to.

[ilaboo]

"David

do you really believe that ther is enough biomass to feed
1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups?
i susspect they get about 6 miles a gallon when they lie about their gas
milage

fwiw
peter

[Stephen Harding]

Post by The immortal Khan

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cncorn113.xml
and so on....

I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
any sort of technology.

Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.

Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.

I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
destruction!

Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?

They murder large numbers of other vehicle operators on
the road out of sheer joy of murder. We need even bigger
SUVs so they can take out buses and trains and even taxiing
airliners to eliminate large swaths of humanity in a single
"accident". By converting all our food grains to fuel to
run them, SUVs will destroy more of humanity from starvation
and disease!

Humans, BAD!
SUV, friend of Mother Earth!


SMH

[Jack May]

Post by Stephen Harding
I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
any sort of technology.
Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.

But the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor before it falls out of
the sky as potential fuel; rain. Water vapor will probably not effect
greenhouse problems very much.

So donquijote1954 is just showing off how little he knows about what is
happening in the world.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Paul - xxx
donquijote1954 wibbled

Post by donquijote1954
So, don't be a hypocrite and get your ass off that SUV because it runs
on Evolution itself.

Mine runs quite happily on Corn / Rapeseed / vegetable oil / diesel
mix, thank you.

I bet they are even organic. Do you and your SUV share the same power
mix for breakfast?

Post by Paul - xxx
You belong on that donkey that Jesus rode. Or at

Post by donquijote1954
least GO AND RIDE A BIKE.

I do. I also ride horses (and donkeys occasionally) and walk.

You can feed them the same power mix, I guess.

[Stephen Harding]

Post by Jack May

Post by Stephen Harding
Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.

But the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor before it falls out of
the sky as potential fuel; rain. Water vapor will probably not effect
greenhouse problems very much.

I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.

ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.

At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

Perhaps H2 powered SUVs will bring on a glacial cooling
period when all that SUV derived water vapor freezes
into snow and ice in Minnesota and Canada, feeding
glaciers and burying our cities!!!

Wow, those SUVs are really something, huh?


SMH

[donquijote1954]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by Jack May

Post by Stephen Harding
Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.

But the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapor before it falls out of
the sky as potential fuel; rain.  Water vapor will probably not effect
greenhouse problems very much.

I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes?  geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was.  Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.
At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity.  Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.
Perhaps H2 powered SUVs will bring on a glacial cooling
period when all that SUV derived water vapor freezes
into snow and ice in Minnesota and Canada, feeding
glaciers and burying our cities!!!
Wow, those SUVs are really something, huh?
SMH

I think the main contribution of the SUV is toward the male ego of the
American psyche. Perhaps like being a gladiator in Roman times.

Their only drawbacks is the gases they spew and the people they kill
on the roads, but those risks are greatly offset by their benefits.
Well, the Roman Circus had its losers too.

[ilaboo]

I think the main contribution of the SUV is toward the male ego of the
American psyche. Perhaps like being a gladiator in Roman times.
i agree
you can now see it in 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups here in the bronx
also if you can believe it--stretch humvees

peter

[Jack May]

Post by Stephen Harding
I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.
At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

From:

http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html

Air can only hold 100% relative humidity. For rain the 100% relative
humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the ground
where the humidity gage is normally. It takes some time for the 100%
humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain. There are cases
where there can be super cooled water being more than 100%, but that is
rare.

So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to increase
global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when it reaches 100%
humidity at some place in the atmosphere. Since we get rain now, the air is
often saturated at some place with the maximum moisture it can hold.

[nafuk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Stephen Harding
I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes?  geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was.  Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.
At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity.  Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html
Air can only hold 100% relative humidity.  For rain the 100% relative
humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the ground
where the humidity gage is normally.  It takes some time for the 100%
humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain.  There are cases
where there can be super cooled water being more than 100%, but that is
rare.
So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to increase
global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when it reaches 100%
humidity at some place in the atmosphere.  Since we get rain now, the air is
often saturated at some place with the maximum moisture it can hold.

There are three gases emitted by aircraft which contribute to global
warming: H2O, CO2 and NOx The most obvious is the water vapour which
forms condensation trails - clouds of frozen ice crystals. Since the
air in the upper troposphere (the level at which most commerical
planes fly) is naturally very dry, water vapour emitted by aircraft
can make a big difference. Sometimes the contrails cover the whole
sky. Have you ever wondered, why the sky is so much clearer in remoter
locations?

Although these contrails reflect a little sunlight away from earth,
they reflect back to earth much more invisible infra-red (heat)
radiation which would otherwise escape to space - and therefore they
have an overall warming effect. This is hard to measure accurately,
because the contrails eventually spread out and become
indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds.

Not all of the water vapour forms contrails, but water is itself a
"greenhouse gas" which also traps this outgoing infra-red radiation.
Each water molecule traps much more heat and also survives much longer
at this height than it would do at sea-level.

Jet-fuel - kerosene - is a mixture of substances produced by
distilling crude oil, which can be represented by C13H28. The chemical
equation for burning it is as follows:
2C13H28 + 40O2 =>26CO2 + 28H2O

So you can see, that for every 14 water molecules produced, the
aircraft must also emit 13 of CO2. This is also a greenhouse gas and
will stay in the atmosphere warming the earth for an average of 100
years, some of it for 1000s of years. There's no way that you can get
the energy from such fossil fuel without producing that much CO2. It's
not a by-product that can be "scrubbed" from the exhaust.

[Bill Sornson]

Post by nafuk

Post by Jack May

Post by Stephen Harding
I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.
At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html
Air can only hold 100% relative humidity. For rain the 100% relative
humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the
ground where the humidity gage is normally. It takes some time for
the 100% humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain.
There are cases where there can be super cooled water being more
than 100%, but that is rare.
So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to
increase global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when
it reaches 100% humidity at some place in the atmosphere. Since we
get rain now, the air is often saturated at some place with the
maximum moisture it can hold.

There are three gases emitted by aircraft which contribute to global
warming: H2O, CO2 and NOx The most obvious is the water vapour which
forms condensation trails - clouds of frozen ice crystals. Since the
air in the upper troposphere (the level at which most commerical
planes fly) is naturally very dry, water vapour emitted by aircraft
can make a big difference. Sometimes the contrails cover the whole
sky. Have you ever wondered, why the sky is so much clearer in remoter
locations?
Although these contrails reflect a little sunlight away from earth,
they reflect back to earth much more invisible infra-red (heat)
radiation which would otherwise escape to space - and therefore they
have an overall warming effect. This is hard to measure accurately,
because the contrails eventually spread out and become
indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds.
Not all of the water vapour forms contrails, but water is itself a
"greenhouse gas" which also traps this outgoing infra-red radiation.
Each water molecule traps much more heat and also survives much longer
at this height than it would do at sea-level.
Jet-fuel - kerosene - is a mixture of substances produced by
distilling crude oil, which can be represented by C13H28. The chemical
2C13H28 + 40O2 =>26CO2 + 28H2O
So you can see, that for every 14 water molecules produced, the
aircraft must also emit 13 of CO2. This is also a greenhouse gas and
will stay in the atmosphere warming the earth for an average of 100
years, some of it for 1000s of years. There's no way that you can get
the energy from such fossil fuel without producing that much CO2. It's
not a by-product that can be "scrubbed" from the exhaust.

So...Al Gore should quit riding around in his 1970s-era Gulfstream? Don't
hold your breath! (You'll just emit a greenhouse gas, anyway!)

Bill "this shit would be really, really funny if it wasn't taken so really,
really seriously by so really, really many" S.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by nafuk

Post by Jack May

Post by Stephen Harding
I think I read that during the Carboniferous period that
the earth was as hot as it has ever been.
ISTR that one of the reasons was due to large amounts of
water vapor in the air (volcanoes? geothermal activity?).
Can't remember what the source of it was. Maybe just
evaporation from oceans.
At any rate, the air can be very heavily saturated with
water without it raining, or without rain clearing up
the humidity. Check out many of the tropical locations
of the world where heavy rains don't lessen humidity.

http://www.wxdude.com/humidity.html
Air can only hold 100% relative humidity. For rain the 100% relative
humidity is at the altitude where the rain is coming from, not the
ground where the humidity gage is normally. It takes some time for
the 100% humidity "mist" to form into drops which fall as rain.
There are cases where there can be super cooled water being more
than 100%, but that is rare.
So for all practical purposes vapor is not going to do much to
increase global warming because it will precipitate out as rain when
it reaches 100% humidity at some place in the atmosphere. Since we
get rain now, the air is often saturated at some place with the
maximum moisture it can hold.

There are three gases emitted by aircraft which contribute to global
warming: H2O, CO2 and NOx The most obvious is the water vapour which
forms condensation trails - clouds of frozen ice crystals. Since the
air in the upper troposphere (the level at which most commerical
planes fly) is naturally very dry, water vapour emitted by aircraft
can make a big difference. Sometimes the contrails cover the whole
sky. Have you ever wondered, why the sky is so much clearer in remoter
locations?
Although these contrails reflect a little sunlight away from earth,
they reflect back to earth much more invisible infra-red (heat)
radiation which would otherwise escape to space - and therefore they
have an overall warming effect. This is hard to measure accurately,
because the contrails eventually spread out and become
indistinguishable from natural cirrus clouds.
Not all of the water vapour forms contrails, but water is itself a
"greenhouse gas" which also traps this outgoing infra-red radiation.
Each water molecule traps much more heat and also survives much longer
at this height than it would do at sea-level.
Jet-fuel - kerosene - is a mixture of substances produced by
distilling crude oil, which can be represented by C13H28. The chemical
2C13H28 + 40O2 =>26CO2 + 28H2O
So you can see, that for every 14 water molecules produced, the
aircraft must also emit 13 of CO2. This is also a greenhouse gas and
will stay in the atmosphere warming the earth for an average of 100
years, some of it for 1000s of years. There's no way that you can get
the energy from such fossil fuel without producing that much CO2. It's
not a by-product that can be "scrubbed" from the exhaust.

So...Al Gore should quit riding around in his 1970s-era Gulfstream? Don't
hold your breath! (You'll just emit a greenhouse gas, anyway!)
Bill "this shit would be really, really funny if it wasn't taken so really,
really seriously by so really, really many" S.

I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

[Jack May]

really seriously by so really, really many" S.

Post by Tom Sherman
I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. That is
exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources that
solve the greenhouse problem.

Almost nothing is learned by fantasizing punishment for people that don't
agree with you.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Bill Sornson
really seriously by so really, really many" S.

Post by Tom Sherman
I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. That is
exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources that
solve the greenhouse problem.
Almost nothing is learned by fantasizing punishment for people that don't
agree with you.

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

[Jack May]

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
a lot of money.

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of our
economy.

Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
effective.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
a lot of money.

More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
century.

Post by Jack May

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of our
economy.
Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
effective.

Pride goes before the fall.

[Jack May]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
make a lot of money.

More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
century.

Well we know what the solutions are now to handle the end of oil. Its just
a matter of doing the work and planning to make it happen. Nobody cares
about your masochistic approach since it is well know those approaches never
work.

Post by Tom Sherman
Pride goes before the fall.

We are talking about a lot of hard work and lot of money, not pride.

You are talking about sitting around and doing absolutely nothing and just
letting civilization collapse. That is the usual approach of highly
incompetent people and invariable leads to nothing working.

The world is not interested in your preaching of damnation and repentance.
You have absolutely nothing to offer.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
make a lot of money.

More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
century.

Well we know what the solutions are now to handle the end of oil. Its just
a matter of doing the work and planning to make it happen. Nobody cares
about your masochistic approach since it is well know those approaches never
work.

These solutions are not going to produce a decent quality of life for 7+
billion people. Even with slowing population growth, ecological collapse
is practically inevitable.

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Pride goes before the fall.

We are talking about a lot of hard work and lot of money, not pride.

No, it is pride that blinds you to the limitations of foolish humans.

Post by Jack May
You are talking about sitting around and doing absolutely nothing and just
letting civilization collapse. That is the usual approach of highly
incompetent people and invariable leads to nothing working.

No I am not. Try to improve your reading comprehension.

Post by Jack May
The world is not interested in your preaching of damnation and repentance.
You have absolutely nothing to offer.

And the world needs more figurative ostriches like Jack May? Stick your
head in the sand of blind faith in miracles.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Tom Sherman
Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life.  If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to
make a lot of money.

More arrogance in believe that there will always be a technological
solution to the problem. Foolish human will learn otherwise during this
century.

Well we know what the solutions are now to handle the end of oil.   Its just
a matter of doing the work and planning to make it happen.    Nobody cares
about your masochistic approach since it is well know those approaches never
work.

Post by Tom Sherman
Pride goes before the fall.

We are talking about a lot of hard work and lot of money, not pride.
You are talking about sitting around and doing absolutely nothing and just
letting civilization collapse.   That is the usual approach of highly
incompetent people and invariable leads to nothing working.
The world is not interested in your preaching of damnation and repentance.
You have absolutely nothing to offer.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yeah, you got much to offer: WWII or Global Warming or Armageddon. I
love your hopeful choices! :(

[donquijote1954]

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life.  If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
a lot of money.

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

Puritans are rather rare these days.  Technology is a very large part of our
economy.

But the solutions are right here right now. The bicycle is a reality,
and if it weren't for all that fear, millions would go out and ride
it.

Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
effective.

It's all about money, not technology. The bicycle doesn't lend to
juicy contracts like the hydrogen car.

[Jack May]

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
a lot of money.

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of
our
economy.

But the solutions are right here right now. The bicycle is a reality,
and if it weren't for all that fear, millions would go out and ride
it.

The bike does not even remotely meet the needs of people in this society.
That is why it is a total failure in attracting people out of their cars.

Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
effective.

It's all about money, not technology. The bicycle doesn't lend to
juicy contracts like the hydrogen car.

Nonsense. Its not all about money. It is all about the bicycle being a
total failure in meeting the needs of people.

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology will
solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.

It is a fact of life. If there is a problem that people need to have
solved, there will be people more than willing to solve that problem to make
a lot of money.

People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

Puritans are rather rare these days. Technology is a very large part of
our
economy.

But the solutions are right here right now. The bicycle is a reality,
and if it weren't for all that fear, millions would go out and ride
it.
The bike does not even remotely meet the needs of people in this society.
That is why it is a total failure in attracting people out of their cars.

And you speak for THE PEOPLE...

Have you noticed how much kids enjoy bicycling? Yeah, play and fun is
natural to the human being, before you dumb him into driving car.

You know how many millions of adults would welcome cycling to rescue
them from the idiotic couch potato life? How nice would be to attract
millions of people to bicycles and other transportation options out
there. They would socialize and have fun for one. Not to say they
would get rid of that fat couch potato ass.

Post by donquijote1954

Sort of proves that punishment has not been very effective in society, but
making a lot of money with technology has been highly attractive and
effective.

It's all about money, not technology. The bicycle doesn't lend to
juicy contracts like the hydrogen car.
Nonsense.  Its not all about money.  It is all about the bicycle being a
total failure in meeting the needs of  people.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Get a guitar and sing along... ;)

Money lyrics
This money I made up when I was ten
Now I'm singing it once more again
It's something pure and innocent
I wanna go back in time
When all that mattered was
The music I made

AND IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE
IN THIS JUNGLE WE'RE IN
You better tell the truth
At least to yourself
Whatever it is that you do
It will come right back to you
So don't you dare to put your
Conscience on the shelf

Now it's all about money
All about cash and getting paid
I don't wanna go on this way
Now it's all about money
All about sex, and getting laid
It doesn't matter what you say

There's so many people out there
Thinkin' only of cash
Makin' music they really despise
And I can never say
I haven't done it myself
But it's time to get away
From those lies

And if you want to survive
In this jungle that we're in
Whatever it is that you do
It will come right back to you

[donquijote1954]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Bill Sornson
really seriously by so really, really many" S.

Post by Tom Sherman
I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them.  That is
exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources that
solve the greenhouse problem.
Almost nothing is learned by fantasizing punishment for people that don't
agree with you.

Here we have Exhibit A of human arrogance. To believe that technology
will solve gross irresponsibility is foolish.
People learn from harsh consequence of their mistakes. If there are no
consequences, they learn nothing.

They only got to learn from history and see what happened in Easter
Island. The people there ended eating each other while their gods
watched indifferently...

"The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including
eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was
absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who
symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became
monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in
hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai
(stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004).
When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was
over and they only found one or two living souls per statue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island

Do religious people believe in history though?

[Jack May]

They only got to learn from history and see what happened in Easter
Island. The people there ended eating each other while their gods
watched indifferently...

"The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including
eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was
absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who
symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became
monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in
hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai
(stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004).
When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was
over and they only found one or two living souls per statue."

Total crap. Nothing you have said is even remotely relevant to the present

[donquijote1954]

Post by donquijote1954
They only got to learn from history and see what happened in Easter
Island. The people there ended eating each other while their gods
watched indifferently...
"The people of Rapa Nui exhausted all possible resources, including
eating their own dogs and all nesting birds when finally there was
absolutely nothing left. All that was left were the stone giants who
symbolized the devouring of a whole island. The stone giants became
monuments where the islanders could keep faith and honour them in
hopes of a return. By the end, there were more than a thousand moai
(stone statues), which was one for every ten islanders (Wright, 2004).
When the Europeans arrived in the eighteenth century, the worst was
over and they only found one or two living souls per statue."
Total crap.  Nothing you have said is even remotely relevant to the present

Sure? The same pattern of behavior will bring you the same result.
Overhunting will lead to your own starvation.

NOT WARS, LIES OR GODS WILL SAVE YOU!

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Bill Sornson
really seriously by so really, really many" S.

Post by Tom Sherman
I hope I am around long enough to laugh at the collapse of civilization.
Foolish humans need to be taught a harsh lesson to learn anything.

People learn the most by solving the problems that confront them. That is
exactly what we will be doing by developing alternative energy sources
that solve the greenhouse problem.

They sure as hell don't seem to learn anything by preventing problems!

[Red Cloud]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by The immortal Khan

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cnc...
and so on....

I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
any sort of technology.
Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.
I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
destruction!
Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?
They murder large numbers of other vehicle operators on
the road out of sheer joy of murder. We need even bigger
SUVs so they can take out buses and trains and even taxiing
airliners to eliminate large swaths of humanity in a single
"accident". By converting all our food grains to fuel to
run them, SUVs will destroy more of humanity from starvation
and disease!
Humans, BAD!
SUV, friend of Mother Earth!
SMH

That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

[Bill Sornson]

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Only missing thing photo Red Cloud tear in eye. HHT! SB

[George Conklin]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Only missing thing photo Red Cloud tear in eye. HHT! SB

If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
many accidents per mile.

[Stephen Harding]

Post by George Conklin
If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
many accidents per mile.

Like how many?

Cite please.


SMH

[donquijote1954]

Post by Stephen Harding

  If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle.  Too
many accidents per mile.

Like how many?
Cite please.
SMH

It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.

[Stephen Harding]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by George Conklin
If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
many accidents per mile.

Like how many?
Cite please.

It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.

That's a fair point.

However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
such a view makes a convenient excuse.

Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
convenient!


SMH

[Tom Keats]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by George Conklin
If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
many accidents per mile.

Like how many?
Cite please.

It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.

That's a fair point.
However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
such a view makes a convenient excuse.
Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
convenient!

And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
have to be such a big deal.


cheers,
Tom

[George Conklin]

Post by Tom Keats

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by George Conklin
If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a bicycle. Too
many accidents per mile.

Like how many?
Cite please.

It's just a fear the system plants on you. It doesn't have to be real
though. Just enough so people give up bicycles and buy SUVs.

That's a fair point.
However I've come to believe people eschew bicycle commuting
not so much because it's seen as a death wish, but more that
such a view makes a convenient excuse.
Let's face it, hopping in the dino-juice buggy can be awfully
convenient!

And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
have to be such a big deal.
cheers,
Tom

In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
locker rooms too.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Tom Keats
...
And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
have to be such a big deal.

In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
locker rooms too.

Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

[Jack May]

Post by Tom Sherman
Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want to
hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are still
installed these days for people that exercise at work.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want to
hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are still
installed these days for people that exercise at work.

Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?

If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

[Jack May]

Post by Tom Sherman
Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

People are paying the true cost of motor vehicles. People pay for the
"free" parking with reduced income. It is probably a small percentage of
their income.

How about the transit users paying off the true cost transit. That is a
very large percentage of the income of most users. The true cost is
typically shown to be the equivalent of a luxury car every year. Few car
owners pay anywhere near that amount each year.

Let me repeat for the people the "just don't get it". People don't use
transit because its slow speed with lots of delays. Transit costs so much
in dollar equivalents of time that people can not afford it.

Transit is just a completely stupid, incompetent approach for 21st Century
society.

Ho

Post by Tom Sherman
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"And never forget, life ultimately makes failures of all people."
- A. Derleth

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

People are paying the true cost of motor vehicles. People pay for the
"free" parking with reduced income. It is probably a small percentage of
their income.

Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
it is hidden in other expenses. Therefore, they do not make the sensible
economic decisions, since their information is faulty.

Post by Jack May
How about the transit users paying off the true cost transit. That is a
very large percentage of the income of most users. The true cost is
typically shown to be the equivalent of a luxury car every year. Few car
owners pay anywhere near that amount each year.

If personal motor vehicle owners had to pay the true cost up front in
use taxes, the ridership of transit would be high enough for it to be
more efficient, especially once people started abandoning inefficient
outer suburban and exurban living in "McMansions".

Post by Jack May
Let me repeat for the people the "just don't get it". People don't use
transit because its slow speed with lots of delays. Transit costs so much
in dollar equivalents of time that people can not afford it.

And commuting in urban areas by large personal motor vehicles does not
involve slow speeds and lots of delays? On what planet is this?

Post by Jack May
Transit is just a completely stupid, incompetent approach for 21st Century
society.

The stupid approach is thinking that putting everyone in a 2 to 4 ton
box by themselves is a good and/or sustainable idea.

Post by Jack May
Ho

What does urban prostitution have to do with this?

[George Conklin]

Post by Tom Sherman
Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
it is hidden in other expenses.

The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
here.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Tom Sherman
Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
it is hidden in other expenses.

The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
here.

True. If more people biked more, the medical industry could potentially
lose millions.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Tom Sherman
Oh please. In the US, people do NOT pay directly for the true cost, but
it is hidden in other expenses.

The true cost of riding a bicycle is huge, and hidden by nonsense posted
here.

Now that is just being silly. How does riding a bicycle impose huge
costs, especially compared to the individual motor vehicle?

[George Conklin]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

People are paying the true cost of motor vehicles. People pay for the
"free" parking with reduced income. It is probably a small percentage of
their income.
How about the transit users paying off the true cost transit. That is a
very large percentage of the income of most users. The true cost is
typically shown to be the equivalent of a luxury car every year. Few car
owners pay anywhere near that amount each year.
Let me repeat for the people the "just don't get it". People don't use
transit because its slow speed with lots of delays. Transit costs so much
in dollar equivalents of time that people can not afford it.
Transit is just a completely stupid, incompetent approach for 21st Century
society.

Transit is speedy compared a bicycle. But bicycles may cost less.

[George Conklin]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want to
hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are still
installed these days for people that exercise at work.

Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a one
and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
exhausted to boot.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Brian Huntley

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they

want to

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May
hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are

still

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by Jack May
installed these days for people that exercise at work.

Pretty poor excuse for a society then, eh?
If people had to pay the true cost of motor vehicles, we would see a lot
more commuter cyclists.

You have that totally backwards. Turning a 15 minute commute into a one
and half hour commute at standard wage rates means that you are wasting
several hours per day of productive work time, and you arrive at work
exhausted to boot.

Nonsense. Riding a bicycle is fun! Regular exercise makes a person LESS
tired.

Get out of your cage!

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman
Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

A company needs "free" parking to be able to attract the people they want
to hire. Very few people ride a bike to work. Showers and lockers are
still installed these days for people that exercise at work.

Your "very few" is actually a rather large number in Portland, OR.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Baxter

Post by Jack May
Very few people ride a bike to work

Your "very few" is actually a rather large number in Portland, OR.

=v= In San Francisco and New York City, as well.
<_Jym_>

[George Conklin]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by George Conklin

Post by Tom Keats
...
And on the other hand, there seems to be a perception among
a lot of people that cycling is just too inconvenient -- that
one must dress funny, "brave" the elements, and risk their
neck among motorized traffic. They don't realize it doesn't
have to be such a big deal.

In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
locker rooms too.

Showers and lockers could be provided for less than the cost of "free"
parking, when the externalities are accounted for.

So who gets free parking? And those externalities are infinite if you
are one of those bicycle militants.

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by George Conklin
In this climate, I would need a shower and chaning room in the buildings at
work, since I would arrive totally 100% soaked through 8 months of the year.
Also, a change of clothes and a place to wash them. So you would need
locker rooms too.

You don't have to bike EVERY trip in order to help the environment and our
oil situation.

[Bonehenge (B A R R Y)]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:20:40 -0800, "Baxter"

Post by Baxter
You don't have to bike EVERY trip in order to help the environment and our
oil situation.

Right on!

I commute on a regular basis (140+ round trips last year!) and do as
many trips as I can by bike. I also work part time at a bicycle shop,
where I teach safe riding and bicycle care clinics. I also belong and
participate in several advocacy groups.

Along with all that, I live in an area that gets significant snowfall,
and then enjoys frozen slush and run-off. My morning commute is in
the dark 4-5 months of the year. I drive at the extreme cold ends of
the local climate. I have no problem riding in a warm rain, but pass
on cold and rain. I ride in cold and dark, but adding the third
dimension of ice puts me in the car.

Bicycle militants turn more people off than they convert to the joys
of riding for actual transportation.

People just need to ride when they can, and extol the virtues of
riding with purpose to encourage others. People willingly join like
minded people, and they move away from extremists.

[Bill Sornson]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's
just window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all
desire to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Only missing thing photo Red Cloud tear in eye. HHT! SB

If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
bicycle. Too many accidents per mile.

First of all, WHOOSH.

Secondly, I'm well over 20,000 miles now, with zero accidents. When should
I start getting scared?!?

Bill "now mountain biking is a far different story" S.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture.  Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's
just window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all
desire to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Only missing thing photo Red Cloud tear in eye.  HHT!  SB

 If you are concerned with your health, you won't be riding a
bicycle.  Too many accidents per mile.

First of all, WHOOSH.
Secondly, I'm well over 20,000 miles now, with zero accidents.  When should
I start getting scared?!?
Bill "now mountain biking is a far different story" S.-

Well, I can see you are a survivor. But when they invite people like
you to national TV, maybe many will imitate you. Monkey see monkey
do. ;)

The problem is nobody talks about heroes like you, while SUV
commercials flash every 5 minutes.

[Amy Blankenship]

"donquijote1954" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ccce08e9-4fd1-4ae6-8228-Well, I can see you are > Monkey see monkey do.
;)

I had sea monkeys when I was a kid...

[Bill Sornson]

Post by Amy Blankenship
I had sea monkeys when I was a kid...

Penicillin clear things up?

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Bill Sornson

Post by Amy Blankenship
I had sea monkeys when I was a kid...

Penicillin clear things up?

You only need that if you feed them too much. Clouds the water.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Red Cloud

Post by Stephen Harding
Humans, BAD!
SUV, friend of Mother Earth!
SMH

That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture.  Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.-

I don't then why God chose this nation out of all others. Holland has
a much cleaner record, for example. This Jesus must have realized
that, "When in Rome, drive as the Romans"...

[donquijote1954]

Lions for lambs. The lion makes the sheep vote in a certain way, and
the sheep blindly follow.

Well, if Democrats don't cut it for you, at least vote for a real
tough Republican, one for tougher environmental controls like
Schwarzenegger...

Schwarzenegger defies Bush on warming
SAN FRANCISCO - Declaring climate change to be an indisputable threat,
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a plan Wednesday to combat global
warming by setting goals for reducing California's emissions of
greenhouse gases.

"Today, California will be a leader in the fight against global
warming," Schwarzenegger told a United Nations conference on the
environment being held in San Francisco.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8072382/

[Stephen Harding]

Post by donquijote1954
Lions for lambs. The lion makes the sheep vote in a certain way, and
the sheep blindly follow.

Didn't know sheep voted.

What sort of bribes do the sheep get from the lions?
Extra grazing privileges? A higher percentage of
the wool trade? Outlawing of lamb chops?


SMH

[donquijote1954]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by donquijote1954
Lions for lambs. The lion makes the sheep vote in a certain way, and
the sheep blindly follow.

Didn't know sheep voted.
What sort of bribes do the sheep get from the lions?
Extra grazing privileges?  A higher percentage of
the wool trade?  Outlawing of lamb chops?
SMH

The sheep provide good consumers, which keeps the Hungry Lion happy.

Well the sheep aren't actually happy, but they like suffering as a
sort of highway to heaven.

"HAPPY PEOPLE IS NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS"

In a consumeristic society the more people get sick, suffer, die, the
better it's for business.

For example, people who can't ride bikes in dangerous traffic become
couch potatoes, who soon become sick, then suffer and finally die. You
can see it everywhere: THE JUNK FOOD INDUSTRY getting kids addicted to
sweet, unhealthy stuff; THE ACCIDENT INDUSTRY that keeps people buying
ever bigger SUVs; THE WAR INDUSTRY that keeps conflicts among ethnics
and religions; THE OIL INDUSTRY that keeps adding to Global Warming as
if there were no tomorrow (there isn't, thanks to them); THE
HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY that benefits from sickness, obesity and mental
anxiety; THE RELIGIOUS INDUSTRY that makes sure you live in fear of a
loving God; and finally THE FUNERAL INDUSTRY that makes sure nothing
gets wasted.

[Stephen Harding]

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Me addicted American killer automobile consumer.

Me American psyche demand NASCAR killer Hummer making
lots noise!


SMH

[donquijote1954]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture.  Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Me addicted American killer automobile consumer.
Me American psyche demand NASCAR killer Hummer making
lots noise!
SMH

Yep, you must attend "SUV Anonymous," and promise to ride a bicycle,
at least when you go to church.

[donquijote1954]

The American psyche is something that the rest of the world doesn't
understand. It's a sort of vaudeville with SUVs and guns. A farse with
yellow ribbons...

"Stick Magnetic Ribbons on your SUV"

[donquijote1954]

god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.

It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.

I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

[donquijote1954]

What "Bike for Peace" is all about...

Well, I want to put together the idea behind the revolution (http://
atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana
+Revolution%21&l4=). There are two Bike for Peace, my own (http://
webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace) and somebody else's (http://
bikeforpeace.org). The two ideas are complementary, and my T-shirts as
a wearable banner (http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution) and
his stickers all are aimed at a more bicycle friendly world. No Mao,
Che or Chavez. Those are stupid lions hungry for power. The revolution
is about getting on a bike and making those tires revolve around its
axis.

Notice in his website this great story of how someone from Bike for
Peace did just that, from Couch Potato to Bicycle Commuter...

http://www.runmuki.com/commute/index.html

[DennisTheBald]

Post by donquijote1954
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

If we had been meant to use our brains they wouldn't have come packed
so well, up inside our hindquarters.

[donquijote1954]

Post by DennisTheBald

Post by donquijote1954
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

If we had been meant to use our brains they wouldn't have come packed
so well, up inside our hindquarters.

"A brain is a terrible thing to waste," or something like that says
the slogan.

Cyclists though do have to use their brain in order to survive. SUV
drivers don't. In that they are similar to sheep...

(Would this fact make cyclists the black sheep? Maybe)

This comment is from actual sheep behavior...

Wait For Me
Sheep have a strong instinct to follow the leader. When one sheep
decides to go somewhere, the rest of the flock usually follows, even
if it is not a good decision. For example, if the lead sheep jumps
over a cliff, the others are likely to follow. Even from birth, lambs
are conditioned to follow the older members of the flock.
http://www.sheep101.info/flocking.html

From Jim Jones to some leaders we have today, they have understood how
to lead the sheep... into a cliff.

But you are just a thinking person, and don't want to be part of
collective suicide. You are the Black Sheep --and proud of it!
http://www.zazzle.com/donquijote1954/product/235821287705130969

[Tom Sherman]

Post by donquijote1954

god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the inconvenience.

[Jack May]

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by donquijote1954

god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
inconvenience.

Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
creationism.

Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.

That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by donquijote1954

god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
inconvenience.

Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
creationism.
Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.
That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

WHooooooooooooooSH!

DON'T PANIC!

And remember to bring your towel.

[donquijote1954]

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by donquijote1954

god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
inconvenience.

Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
creationism.
Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.
That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
Ignoramus"...

Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new
study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade
with time.

Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour
was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But
more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised
apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a
person's religiousness.

But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few
studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive
parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and
behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes
play a small role in religiousness at that age.

Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at
the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease
apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their
study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors
become more important in determining how religious a person is, while
environmental factors wane.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/genes-contribut.html

[Tom Sherman]

Post by donquijote1954

Post by Jack May

Post by Tom Sherman

Post by donquijote1954

god put the oil in the earth for us to use.
God put the animal bones there to test our faith.
Unless god says there is global warming, there isn't.

That pretty much sums up the basic belief of many Christians.
It doesn't make sense. But, hey, God didn't give us the brain to
think.
I wonder though why God gave us a brain.

But, at least at the end, God apologizes to creation for the
inconvenience.

Sounds like you don't understand evolution but believe in some undefined
creationism.
Our ability to be highly creative in our development of new capabilities
came from a genetic mutation about 55 thousand years ago.
That gene was propagated by evolution. It greatly increased the survivable
rate of people that had that genetic mutation.

Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
Ignoramus"...

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Jack May]

Post by donquijote1954
Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
Ignoramus"...

We know exactly which gene is the "Jesus gene " as it is sometimes called.
The mutation that caused it occurred between 20K and 25K years ago and
spread to many people.

It is a guess of what it does. It seems to allow leaders to manipulate the
thinking of large groups of people. Very useful in saying we are good,
those people are bad, follow me to kill all those bad people.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Jack May

Post by donquijote1954
Have they isolated yet the religious gene? It must come from the "Homo
Ignoramus"...

We know exactly which gene is the "Jesus gene " as it is sometimes called.
The mutation that caused it occurred between 20K and 25K years ago and
spread to many people.
It is a guess of what it does. It seems to allow leaders to manipulate the
thinking of large groups of people. Very useful in saying we are good,
those people are bad, follow me to kill all those bad people.

Anyone who believes anything a "leader" says without independent
verification is a fool.

[Tom Sherman]

Post by Red Cloud
That's honest opinion being American consumer automobile addicted
culture. Sure Americans are fighting for green stuff but that's just
window dressing. In deepest psyche of America, they are all desire
to drive SUV and Hummer. That is the American psyche. Driving
big car, driving like NASCAR are their passion and psyche. This is
why bicycle will never be the public transporatation in America.
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

What, no "White Penis Power"?

[T. Ling Yu]

Post by Red Cloud
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Why would you want to kill human being with your bike, RC.
That's horrible!

[donquijote1954]

Post by T. Ling Yu

Post by Red Cloud
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Why would you want to kill human being with your bike, RC.
That's horrible!

When you are in an SUV you have POWER, power to kill power not to
kill. But you don't get all hung up about it. You treat power
casually, and keep chatting on your cell. It must look natural. You
barely notice those poor monkeys trying to survive in their little
bikes. Any death resulting from this must appear accidental.

[T. Ling Yu]

Post by donquijote1954

innews:139ec435-3312-4ef6-be87-396fe

Post by Red Cloud
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Why would you want to kill human being with your bike, RC.
That's horrible!

When you are in an SUV you have POWER, power to kill power not to
kill. But you don't get all hung up about it. You treat power
casually, and keep chatting on your cell. It must look natural. You
barely notice those poor monkeys trying to survive in their little
bikes. Any death resulting from this must appear accidental.

But why cell phone keep get smaller? Stupid American must need
to want desire fat-ass cellphone with more power, no?

[donquijote1954]

Post by T. Ling Yu

Post by donquijote1954

innews:139ec435-3312-4ef6-be87-396fe

Post by Red Cloud
Bike is too slow and too silence and unable to kill human being.

Why would you want to kill human being with your bike, RC.
That's horrible!

When you are in an SUV you have POWER, power to kill power not to
kill. But you don't get all hung up about it. You treat power
casually, and keep chatting on your cell. It must look natural. You
barely notice those poor monkeys trying to survive in their little
bikes. Any death resulting from this must appear accidental.

But why cell phone keep get smaller? Stupid American must need
to want desire fat-ass cellphone with more power, no?-

Well, that's coming soon...

Loading Image...

You can take it right on the bed of this SUV...

http://www.marketingshift.com/2004/9/biggest-suv-navistar-international.cfm

[donquijote1954]

This T-shirt is not for oil junkies...

http://www.zazzle.com/bike_for_peace_shirt-235671708848009326

[donquijote1954]

Post by Stephen Harding

Post by The immortal Khan

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Kind of a shame that corn, wheat and other bio-ethanol sources are low, with
rapidly escalating prices isn't it...food prices skyrocketting so that folk
can still drive their cars....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6481029.stm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4328.2580.0.0
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/13/cnc...
and so on....

I don't think it's possible to please some Green types with
any sort of technology.
Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.
I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
destruction!
Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?
They murder large numbers of other vehicle operators on
the road out of sheer joy of murder.  We need even bigger
SUVs so they can take out buses and trains and even taxiing
airliners to eliminate large swaths of humanity in a single
"accident".  By converting all our food grains to fuel to
run them, SUVs will destroy more of humanity from starvation
and disease!
Humans, BAD!
SUV, friend of Mother Earth!

SUVs are the vehicles of salvation...

Loading Image...

They will shuttle the Religious Right out of this planet when they
finally succeed in destroying it.

[ilaboo]

They will shuttle the Religious Right out of this planet when they
finally succeed in destroying it.

its really not them
they jsut refect our society no more no less

peter

[Brian Huntley]

Post by Stephen Harding
Once H2 fueled vehicles come on line in perhaps 10-15 years,
their by-product of combustion will be water vapor.
Water vapor is much more effective "greenhouse gas" than
CO2.

Current gasoline-powered cars also produce water vapour - about 8
pound per US gallon of gas burned, I believe.

(It then condenses into ice right where I want to ride, apparently.)

[ilaboo]

Post by Stephen Harding
I think the planet is doomed unless there is mass human
destruction!
Perhaps SUVs are actually doing Earth a favor?

steve
i hate to say this but i think you are right--sad for our children
i know of no answer and that includes getting human dna off this planet
life i know will go one and steve--that's what keeps me going in a dead
planet

peter

[donquijote1954]

Post by Just A User

Post by donquijote1954
No, SUVs (or whatever vehicle you drive) don't run on water. They run
on oil,

Some of them run on corn (ethanol) now.

Well then it's time we pull out of Iraq.

Still it's better to run on bananas than to run on corn. Bananas are
more efficient, and, of course, are more fun. ;)

[Paul - xxx]

donquijote1954 wibbled

Post by donquijote1954
So, don't be a hypocrite and get your ass off that SUV because it runs
on Evolution itself.

Mine runs quite happily on Corn / Rapeseed / vegetable oil / diesel
mix, thank you.

You belong on that donkey that Jesus rode. Or at

Post by donquijote1954
least GO AND RIDE A BIKE.

I do. I also ride horses (and donkeys occasionally) and walk.

[ilaboo]

suv here in new york city are now a dead issue

what we now see are 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups with double wheels in back
and passenger cabs
it really is depressing
i can now understand the phd physicist burning suv dealerships

i suspect after Katrina groups of people jsut killed the persons who totally
disrupted the ability to suvive--drink all teh water/ eat all the food freak
out becasue of no alcohol

etc
fwiw

peter

[donquijote1954]

Post by ilaboo
suv here in new york city are now a dead issue
what we now see are 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups with double wheels in back
and passenger cabs
it really is depressing
i can now understand the phd physicist burning suv dealerships
i suspect after Katrina groups of people jsut killed the persons who totally
disrupted the ability to suvive--drink all teh water/ eat all the food freak
out becasue of no alcohol

What do they need SUVs in NYC for, to tame the Asphalt Jungle?

[Tom Sherman]

Post by ilaboo
suv here in new york city are now a dead issue
what we now see are 1/2 ton 4 wheel drive pickups with double wheels in back
and passenger cabs...

Wrong. No such thing as a one-half (1/2) ton pick-up truck with dual
rear wheels in back. If it has dual rear wheels, it is either a one (1)
ton pickup or "commercial duty" pickup.

[DennisTheBald]

I thought petroleum, and most hydrocarbons, was formerly primarily
plant matter that had been trapped in sediment and covered by oceans,
algae & stuff being the liquid petroleum and trees & stuff ending up
as coal... but this discounts the whole abiogenic petroleum theory.

I guess I'm not really sure where petroleum comes from, I suspect that
it had to be deposited in the sediment way long before there were such
things as dinosaurs (obviously the folks at Sinclair Oil co
disagree). I just could live with myself if I believed that I was
burning Fred's cute little Dino every time I lit the furnace.

I'm not sure I follow the assertion of hypocrisy either. I think that
people that don't believe that living things evolve believe that the
world has always been like it is now and don't really subscribe to
either the biogenic or abiogenic theory on the origin of petroleum...
God created it on the eighth day but it was not deemed noteworthy at
the time. But then I guess I'm a really bad representative of their
ideas & beliefs.

I don't think there's much debate about where the petroleum is going.

[donquijote1954]

Post by DennisTheBald
I thought petroleum, and most hydrocarbons, was formerly primarily
plant matter that had been trapped in sediment and covered by oceans,
algae & stuff being the liquid petroleum and trees & stuff ending up
as coal... but this discounts the whole abiogenic petroleum theory.
I guess I'm not really sure where petroleum comes from, I suspect that
it had to be deposited in the sediment way long before there were such
things as dinosaurs (obviously the folks at Sinclair Oil co
disagree).  I just could live with myself if I believed that I was
burning Fred's cute little Dino every time I lit the furnace.
I'm not sure I follow the assertion of hypocrisy either.  I think that
people that don't believe that living things evolve believe that the
world has always been like it is now and don't really subscribe to
either the biogenic or abiogenic theory on the origin of petroleum...
God created it on the eighth day but it was not deemed noteworthy at
the time.  But then I guess I'm a really bad representative of their
ideas & beliefs.
I don't think there's much debate about where the petroleum is going.

Well, even if you concede that the origin or petroleum is
"mysterious," it's clear that it contradicts the Bible's account of a
recent creation. The dinosaurs too contradict the story of Noah's ark.
Why God wiped them out?

I think what it is that Christians are some monkeys that deny their
ancestry while behaving like simple predators. Actually they are
excellent survivors in this Darwinistic jungle where we live. But they
forget one lesson from evolution itself, something the dinosaurs were
too stupid to understand...

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." -Charles Darwin

[donquijote1954]

Another T-shirt not for oil junkies...

http://www.zazzle.com/no_gasno_problem_shirt-235183723244701428

[donquijote1954]

I hope those who drive SUVs will like the SUBs. Just kidding...

http://www.zazzle.com/bike_for_peace_shirt-235712478668290802

[donquijote1954]

On Jan 10, 12:41 pm, "Amy Blankenship"

Direct attacks on others' deeply held beliefs isn't funny, whether I share
them or not.

But when those beliefs are used as cover for evil things then they are
fair game.
------------------
But you haven't attacked them as a cover for evil things. You've
essentially said
"All Christians drive SUV's"
"SUV's are evil"
"Therefore, all Christians are evil."
Only you've managed to pad it out to make it much more offensive than that.-

No, I've said driving an SUV (1) is evil, which makes many Christians
evil doers, but not all. Everybody knows not all Christians drive
SUVs, and that many even ride bicycles. We know these get a ticket to
Heaven --if there's one.

(1) Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle, not the smaller utilitarian one.

But let's establish an EVIL RATING SCALE, where bicycling is a 1 and
SUVing is a 10, so we know who's who...

(add 5 point penalty for use of cell phones)

1 Bicycle
2 Public Transportation
3 Scooter
4
5 Small stickshift car
6
7 Minivan
8 Regular car
9 Utilitarian SUV
10 Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle

Then you add it all at the end of the week, and figure if you are on
your way to Hell or Heaven. A passing score would be 5 or below. For
example, if I used the car 3 times (24 points), but used the bicycle
10 times (10), and a scooter 9 times (27 points), I get a 61 point
total. So I divide it by the total trips (22) and get a final average
score of 2.7727. I'm not going to Hell!!!

[ZBicyclist]

Post by donquijote1954
But let's establish an EVIL RATING SCALE, where bicycling is a 1 and
SUVing is a 10, so we know who's who...
(add 5 point penalty for use of cell phones)
1 Bicycle
2 Public Transportation
3 Scooter
4
5 Small stickshift car
6
7 Minivan
8 Regular car
9 Utilitarian SUV
10 Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle

Trolling should be on there somewhere, maybe as #6.