Divorce Your Car --and get into a relationship with a Bike!

"Bill Funk" > wrote
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:47:35 -0700, "Floyd Rogers" wrote:
> ...
> The "and such" can only be interpreted to mean more of the same as you
> listed, not completely different sources of money.

I see that you've now accepted the fact that you made an unsupported
statement and retired without acknowledging that fact, in the face of
my incontrovertible citations. Thank You.

FloydR

In article >, Bill Funk wrote:

>>>>What was the actual evidence the reason was WMDs? Oh, GWB said so. and he
>>>>_never_ lies, right?

>>> How stupid do you want to appear to be?
>>> Do you expect me to believe that Bush only has advisors that told him
>>> the WMDs didn't exist? Really?

>>Did I disturb your sense of 'team' ?

> No, but you do seem to be too dumb to think about what you write.
> Have you actually considered the idea of such advisors? Or do you
> labor under the impressioin that Bush has only "no" men on his team?

Maybe you're just scarcasm impaired, have trouble reading or I don't
know. I didn't state anything that could even remotely imply that about
shrub's advisors. Oh wait, I get it... it's that neo-con logic that if
an advisor said such and such to a president and the president repeats
it because he believes it, it's not technically a lie. maybe you are
just scarcasm impaired.

>>>>The president wants to do X for reason Y. He knows the nation isn't going
>>>>to go for reason Y, so he tells them reason Z. That's politics. That's
>>>>how things work.

>>> How cynical.

>>Realistic. Comes from living in c(r)ook county IL, when everytime one
>>turns around there is another scandle, another coverup, etc and so forth.

> Well, you choose to live theree, so I can only think you like it. But
> to project isn't valid.

As if moving would erase the experience from memory. And it is quite
valid. Government in this nation is about money. There are few good
people left. This is obvious to anyone who sees who benefits from
various policies. To think it doesn't scale up is naive.

>>> You aren't in a position of power or authority, I can tell, becasue
>>> you have an extremely cynical sense of what is entailed in such
>>> positions.

>>What's entailed, priority number one is satisifying the people who put
>>you into that office. This has been made clear time and time again by the
>>actions of those in office.

> Ah, so you'd prefer people in charge who got there, how?

I would prefer that political office not require becoming beholden to
various corporations, bankers, etc.

> Are you saying that a dictatorship would be better?

Are you saying the greys should come down with their motherships and
rule us?

>>> Instead of letting your dislike for Bush rule your mind, think outside
>>> of that box. You're smart, your posts here show that, but your
>>> thinking is far too constrained by your dislikes that you can't see
>>> the other side at all.

>>Has nothing to do with liking or disliking shrub. In fact, I had some
>>hope that republicans would mark an end to the corruption and slide of
>>the protection of our rights when they took over. I hoped they would
>>behave as advertised. I had some hope, just like the people who voted for
>>them, because after all maybe they would take note of who was thrown out
>>and why.

> Is your lack of dislike for Bush why you seem so bent on blaming him
> for just about everything, even those things he has nothing to do
> with?

Is your lack of dislike for greys why you seem so bent on blaming them
for just about everything, even those things they have nothing to do with?

>>Since taking power they have outspent all previous adminstrations, they
>>have put in the biggest entitlement program since LBJ, at best covered
>>up the events of 11-sept-2001, drummed up fear, rendered most of what
>>was left of the bill of rights moot, created great profits for their
>>sponsors, and a whole host of other actions. Whatever little good may be
>>left in there is simply dwarfed by their actions.

> Right.
> Air America?

Oh, that's right, you're a binary thinker. If I don't like republican
big government I must be one of those damn liberals. Here's a freaking
clue, while you're out there supporting your team right or wrong, I have
retained my views. The republican party has ceased (were they ever?)
being about small government. I believe in minimal government. Not a
giantanic ever watching parental government.

>>No, I don't hate bush. I find what he and his fellow republicans have
>>done to be further sliding the nation towards tyranny. The same things I
>>saw happening when clinton was in office, only accelerated.

Scott en Aztlán > wrote:

> (RJ) said in rec.autos.driving:
>
> >In my younger years, I shared walls with a variety of bad neighbors.
> >
> >Never again.
> >
> >You'd have to use a gun to make me go back to rabbit hutch living.
>
> Suit yourself. Hope you enjoy your fuel bills.

My commute is long but I only do it 2.5 times per week. So you don't
get that glee, sorry.

R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:26:47 -0400, (RJ) wrote:
>
> >donquijote1954 > wrote:
> >
> >> a minute, THIS IS A DEMOCRACY,
> >
> >There's your problem; a basic misunderstanding of our form of
> >government.
>
> Who taught you? Che or Chavez?

You think the US is a democracy?

Civics education must have disappeared entirely from the curriculum.

Floyd Rogers > wrote:

> "RJ" > wrote
> > Floyd Rogers > wrote:
> >> "RJ" > wrote
> >>
> >> > You won't have to worry until the system springs a leak below the
> >> > surface. That's when I found out how to negate five years of cost
> >> > savings in one week of excavation and repair.
> >>
> >> So, what got through the HDPE?
> >
> > I wasn't home to see it. It sprung a leak, and we got to replace the
> > whole set of tubing.
>
> So, you don't know if it was a squirrel, a rock laying against the pipe
> that wore through, a joint weld (heat weld), tree root or what, and
> automatically conclude it was a root? Great logic.

I cannot imagine how you inferred I said it was done in by a tree root,
because I said no such thing. My point was that any underground failure
is BIG BUXX.

I was commenting on the general fact that if you are depending on a much
more complex system that appears to offer operational savings, your
savings can be wiped out in a heartbeat by a system failure that costs
more than you saved.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:49:48 GMT, Bill Baka >
> wrote:
>
>> RJ wrote:
>>> Bill Baka > wrote:
>>>
>>>> RJ wrote:
>>>>> Bill Baka > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The automakers have been keeping the obvious from the public who seems
>>>>>> to buy all the crap they can hand out.
>>>>> Yeah, and they bought the rights to the 100 mpg carburetor just so we
>>>>> would have to buy more gas, right?
>>>> That was always a myth. Computer controlled fuel injection is about as
>>>> close as we are going to get. Most of the energy is wasted as exhaust
>>>> heat and radiator heat. Use that and you might get close to 100 MPG.
>>>> Bill Baka
>>> Whoosh.
>> Whoosh meaning what?
>
> Whoosh meaning you missed the idea that most "conspiracies" are
> illogical on their face, if not downright idiotic.
> That you wrote the following:
>> Carbs are very imprecise except at a few certain set points.
>> If there was a way to use all the waste heat to power some kind of steam
>> engine then you would have a 100 MPG car, at least on the freeway. Stop
>> and go traffic almost 100% demands electric for start stop and parking
>> lot driving conditions.
>
> shows that you don't understand that the "100mpg carb" is the shining
> light that ponts to how dumb conspiracy theories can be (and usually
> are).

I understand that part, I just took the scientific point of view on fuel
utilization, not the political.
Taking your point of view I have to agree that such theories could not
propagate without a certain amount of public stupidity / gullibility.
Physics I can debate, voters I will never understand.
Bill Baka

"Bill Funk" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:27 GMT, "George Conklin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Mike Kruger > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >2. Full buses going relatively short distances ARE fuel efficient.
Where
> >do
> >> >we see these conditions? In the densely populated areas of major
cities.
> >
> >Nonsense. You have that right now and transit buses are fuel
INefficient.
> >Why? First, they go loaded into some central point and return empy.
Half
> >load immediately, even if full. Second, they have to run weekend, night
and
> >holidays. In the end transit buses waste fuel. Always will. And they
tear
> >up the roads too, with loadings Worse than a tractor trailer.
> >
> Could you provide a cite for that last part?
> Thanks.
> --
> Bill Funk
> replace "g" with "a"

Author: Gibby-Reed. Dawson-Rebecca. Sebaaly-Peter.
Title: Local urban transit bus impact on pavements.
Source: Journal-of-Transportation-Engineering. May-June, 1996.
v122(n3). p215(3).
Copyright: COPYRIGHT American Society of Civil Engineers 1996
Abstract: Bus transit systems provide a valuable service to many
residents living within urban areas. Like other vehicles,
buses
depend on paved streets and roads for a smooth ride. The
pavement wear due to truck traffic has been monitored
and researched for many years. The effects of urban transit
buses on pavements owned and maintained by local governments
are examined from the following three perspectives: (1)
Pavement design; (2) pavement condition data
analysis; and (3) visual observations. Each of the three
perspectives suggests that significant pavement damage
is caused by transit bus traffic. Another analysis
probed pavements' damage if buses had a third axle. There are
a
number of significant conclusions offered which include the
following: (1) Fully loaded transit buses exceed the
California
legal axle limit; (2) the construction cost to accommodate
transit buses is approximately 5% for arterials and 58% for
collectors; (3) the addition of a third axle will reduce the
pavement damage by approximately three times; and (4)
another approach to reduce pavement damage would be to
use lighter-weight materials in the manufacturing of transit
buses.

Bill Funk wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:05:44 GMT, Bill Baka >
> wrote:
>
>> Roger Houston wrote:
>>> "Bill Baka" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Someone please explain why military service is so damned important to get
>>>> elected? It invokes visions of taking orders from others to go and storm a
>>>> hill and get shot because someone of higher 'rank' told you to. Is this
>>>> the mark of a leader or a follower?
>>>> Many of the brightest among us have a high level college degree like a
>>>> Masters or Ph.D. (or 2 or 3) and would have never considered being a
>>>> military grunt.
>>> News flash: Enduring years of school doesn't make you bright, either. Enjoy
>>> your privilege, but don't forget why you post in English instead of German,
>>> Japanese or Arabic.
>>>
>>> People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand
>>> ready to do violence on their behalf.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> True.
>> And if Viet Nam had been a real war I would have happily joined, but not
>> for an idealistic clash which made victims out of the people in a far
>> away land.
>> Military service is good when a war is to be fought, but not for
>> political leverage.
>> Bill Baka
>
> So, if there were a 'real war", you'd enlist?
> How about if the US were attacked, as in, for example, Pearl Harbor?

After making a few stupid posts to attack me, now you get the point. If
we had a real war I would enlist even at my present age. However the
last real war was before I was on this planet. What is the point of
enlisting in the military if there is no war? Political leverage and
veteran's benefits, and if you get lucky you will never see enemy
gunfire coming at you. I doubt that all those soldiers in the reserves
counted on spending a large part of their life in Iraq, and some the
final part of their life. We are not at war, merely engaged in the
agenda of a president without a clue. If our politicians had any sense
they would just back out of the Mideast and let them go on killing each
other, rather than staying there and getting over one BILLION Muslims
****ed off at us. Better to make it a forbidden zone for Americans than
to pursue the present course of action. If we are fighting a war on
'terrorism' then we should also invade Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, etc.
They all had a hand in it but Saddam was the target and Bin Laden is
still a free man.
Sometimes you have to know when to quit.
Bill Baka

"George Conklin" > wrote
> "Bill Funk" > wrote
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:50:27 GMT, "George Conklin" wrote:
>> >... And they tear
>> >up the roads too, with loadings Worse than a tractor trailer.
>> >
>> Could you provide a cite for that last part?
>
>
> Author: Gibby-Reed. Dawson-Rebecca. Sebaaly-Peter.
> Title: Local urban transit bus impact on pavements.

For comparison's sake, King County Metro bought some Breda
dual-mode buses for use on electrical inside the Seattle tunnel:
they have electric (trolley-like) motors and diesels. They have
three axles (bending design) with dualies on the main cab's drive
wheels and on the trailer. They weigh 66,000 lbs. That's a FAR
higher load than an 18-wheeler truck.

The city/county/state had to give them a special exemption, as
they were *just* legal without any load.

FloydR

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:21:27 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> There is no other side?
>> See that link above? If you'd follow it, you'd learn their is another
>> side to your posts.
>> If you really think you're not taking sides, you really are dumb.
>
>I'm sorry.... I forget, political dumb****s in the USA think everything
>is about their 'team' and there are just two teams. No thinking allowed,
>just sign up with a team. Sorry, I don't play that.
>


Funk and Brent: Please stop crossposting to
rec.bicycles.rides and rec.bicycles.misc

Thanks