Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

"Carl Rogers" > wrote in message
...
| Hi Via <bitch slap>

| (3) If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a
| fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km.

This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of
central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an
hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show
your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road
names/numbers right.

**** off, asshole.

RC

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On Jun 27, 4:10*pm, "Reality Check" > wrote:
> "Carl Rogers" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> | Hi Via <bitch slap>
>
> | (3) *If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a
> | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km.
>
> This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of
> central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an
> hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show
> your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road
> names/numbers right.
>
> **** off, asshole.
>
> RC

Work on him RC. :)
He could always reduce his carbon footprint by quitting exhaling, but
that's not highly likely.

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On Jun 27, 5:16*pm, My Land of Misery > wrote:
> On Jun 27, 4:10*pm, "Reality Check" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Carl Rogers" > wrote in message
>
> ....
> > | Hi Via <bitch slap>
>
> > | (3) *If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a
> > | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km.
>
> > This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of
> > central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an
> > hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show
> > your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road
> > names/numbers right.
>
> > **** off, asshole.
>
> > RC
>
> Work on him RC. *:)
> He could always reduce his carbon footprint by quitting exhaling, but
> that's not highly likely.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hello gentlemen, and I use that term quite loosely,

Do you have any arguments that support the topic of this thread? Just
curious.

Cheers,

Carl Rogers
"Environment first, transportology second"
********
Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL):
http://wwtl.info
http://m.wwtl.info [Mobile]
+1 201.676.0185 [Press]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete coverage of international roads and railways.
Since 2000, we have offered several photographs, videos and
Virtual 360 captures -- to each viatologist & transportologist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On Jun 27, 2:10*pm, "Reality Check" > wrote:
> "Carl Rogers" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> | Hi Via <bitch slap>
>
> | (3) *If you must travel for the sake of viatology alone, consider a
> | fuel-efficient car that gets more than 30 MPG or 7.75L/100km.
>
> This is as opposed to you who took several lousy photographs of
> central Florida from a ****ing AIRPLANE that spews more carbon in an
> hour than most cars could hope to spew in a year. And then to show
> your viatological prowess, you couldn't even get some of the road
> names/numbers right.
>
> **** off, asshole.
>
> RC

Mister Angry,

Lest you forget... an airplane carries more persons per capita than a
vehicle. If all travelers on the airplane decided to travel by road,
more carbon per capita would be used. Is it your position that an
airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more
kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? Answer: no.
There's your reality check.

Secondly, if you wish to say somebody isn't "getting it right", back
it up with evidence so a correction can be made. It makes you a much
more credible person in the long run. Perhaps I would make
corrections you suggest if you objectively point out evidence and not
a philosophical statement.

When you deal in volume like I do, errors occasionally occur. Your
negativity focuses narrowly on errors, which makes you... well...
angry.

I've had a great day outside. Hope you did too!

Cheers,

Carl Rogers
"Environment first, transportology second"
********
Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL):
http://wwtl.info
http://m.wwtl.info [Mobile]
+1 201.676.0185 [Press]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete coverage of international roads and railways.
Since 2000, we have offered several photographs, videos and
Virtual 360 captures -- to each viatologist & transportologist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
********

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

Funny how 'Green "Viatology"' pops up when road meets are mentioned. It's
not *really* about the environment, The Bog just feels really bad about
his complete and total social ineptitude. If you were really 'green',
Cal, you'd do what I do. Ditch the car entirely and take mass transit and/
or pool rides.


--
Otto Yamamoto

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On 2010-06-28 14:07:50 +1000, Carl Rogers > said:

> Lest you forget... an airplane carries more persons per capita than a
> vehicle. If all travelers on the airplane decided to travel by road,
> more carbon per capita would be used. Is it your position that an
> airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more
> kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? Answer: no.
> There's your reality check.

You have failed to take into account the effect of aircraft
condensation trails on climate, they do have a significant effect. This
effect was physically measured when your airspace was shut down for
three days after 9/11.

If you are serious about green transportation, why don't you have a
section on your site covering horse and ox based propulsion
technologies. You could include the GPS coordinates of good watering
and pasture locations, the location good blacksmith franchises etc.

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On Jun 28, 3:06*am, Dasyurid > wrote:
> On 2010-06-28 14:07:50 +1000, Carl Rogers > said:
>
> > Lest you forget... an airplane carries more persons per capita than a
> > vehicle. *If all travelers on the airplane decided to travel by road,
> > more carbon per capita would be used. *Is it your position that an
> > airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more
> > kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? *Answer: no.
> > There's your reality check.
>
> You have failed to take into account the effect of aircraft
> condensation trails on climate, they do have a significant effect. This
> effect was physically measured when your airspace was shut down for
> three days after 9/11.
>
> If you are serious about green transportation, why don't you have a
> section on your site covering horse and ox based propulsion
> technologies. *You could include the GPS coordinates of good watering
> and pasture locations, the location good blacksmith franchises etc.

This is true. In addition, was Carl even aware that it was a practice
of most airliners to dump fuel after takeoff? There is additional 'un-
green' issues with air travel....noise pollution around airports, bird
strikes, massive amounts of deicers used in the winter etc, etc.

Sorry, but for me, i would much prefer to take a road trip, even if by
myself, and see America by road.

While it WAS nice to see proof that Carl isnt a spam-bot (I suspect
troll is more like it), i think the Gore-act-alike act wore thin
already....

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

"Carl Rogers" > wrote in message
...

<bitch slap>

|Is it your position that an
airplane carrying 200 passengers on a 5000km flight would produce more
kilograms than 200 cars traveling the same distance? Answer: no.
There's your reality check.

That's what you think, dumbass. Just because you are lonely enough to
be travelling stag all the time doesn't mean that everyone on that
plane is, so there will be far fewer cars making that trip. So even if
there is only 2 people per car making that trip, that's 100 cars
making the trip, not 200.

Since I couldn't find a plane that carries exactly 200 passengers,
Let's look at a comparison of an Airbus A330-200 carrying 253
passengers from NYC to LA versus those people driving:

Assuming a 2778 mile driving trip from NYC to LA (courtesy of
mapquest.com) with cars averaging 30MPG, that's 11,760 gallons of fuel
( (2778Mi / 30Mi/gal)/car * 127 cars.*** )

For a 2475 mile* flight from JFK to LAX in an Airbus A330 that uses
5.44 gallons per flight mile** that's 13,464 gallons of fuel for those
253 people. That ofcourse, does not include the fuel consumed getting
to/from the airports.

* Source: http://www.travelmath.com/flight-dis...rom/LAX/to/JFK
**Source:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/2628781/
*** 127 cars = the 253 passengers that an Airbus A330 carries
travelling 2 people per car

Let's see, 11,760 gallons for the cars and 13,464 gallons for the
airplane.
Stick that in your exhaust pipe and smoke it, wiseguy.


| Secondly, if you wish to say somebody isn't "getting it right", back
it up with evidence so a correction can be made. It makes you a much
more credible person in the long run. Perhaps I would make
corrections you suggest if you objectively point out evidence and not
a philosophical statement.

You must have gone and made the change after how many Floridians
flamed you over calling Fairbanks Ave Florida State Road 528?

| I've had a great day outside. Hope you did too!

Its always a great day when I'm watching Football and flaming you.

RC

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:52:50 -0400, Reality Check wrote:

>Its always a great day when I'm watching Football and flaming you.

Football?

Football season doesn't start for a couple of months.

Unless you're talking about that bore-fest called soccer.


--
To reply by e-mail, remove the "restrictor plate"

Green viatology: minimise your carbon footprint!
 

On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:34:27 -0700, H.B. Elkins wrote:


> Football?
>
> Football season doesn't start for a couple of months.
>
> Unless you're talking about that bore-fest called soccer.

How anyone can call a game that mostly involves moving a ball downfield
in your hands or by throwing it 'football' escapes me. It's a form of
rugby, really. As far as that goes I find most football('soccer') games
fairly entertaining; it's a matter of having followed it for a good deal
of my life.



--
Otto Yamamoto