Republicans and other *******s are trying to slow you down

On 12/2/2010 12:39 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:02:45 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 11/29/2010 4:27 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Forrest wrote:
On 11/29/2010 11:20 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average



backyard philosopher wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:17 am, wrote:
On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:

One solution is to get folding bike.

Can't get a basket on those

Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.

The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The other
*******s will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry about
tickets.

This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...

http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.as...ROD&ProdID=397

Let the Republicans die of envy!

My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.


No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.


You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.

On 12/2/2010 4:23 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:39 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:02:45 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 11/29/2010 4:27 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
average
backyard philosopher wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Forrest wrote:
On 11/29/2010 11:20 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
average



backyard philosopher wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:17 am, wrote:
On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
average
backyard philosopher wrote:

One solution is to get folding bike.

Can't get a basket on those

Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.

The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The
other
*******s will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry
about
tickets.

This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...

http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.as...ROD&ProdID=397


Let the Republicans die of envy!

My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.


No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway
schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.


You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.

If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/2/2010 4:23 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:39 PM, dgk wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:02:45 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, dgk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 11/29/2010 4:27 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
average
backyard philosopher wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Forrest wrote:
On 11/29/2010 11:20 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
average



backyard philosopher wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:17 am, wrote:
On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
average
backyard philosopher wrote:

One solution is to get folding bike.

Can't get a basket on those

Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.

The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The
other
*******s will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry
about
tickets.

This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...

http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.as...ROD&ProdID=397



Let the Republicans die of envy!

My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.


No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway
schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.


You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.

If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".

How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?

On 12/2/2010 12:41 PM, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:53:22 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest wrote:
snip
My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.

No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
enough for you?

And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.


Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
steep hill and if you can't you're a "****head".

Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
to.

Correct. I would chose not to use it even if were available due to the
convenience factor, the fact that isn't available where I live just
makes the decision that much easier. Compared to rest of the western
world public transportation in the U.S. is a joke. If it were as
widespread and efficient as it is in Japan for example, then I might
have a different opinion.

On Dec 2, 9:23*pm, Forrest Hodge wrote:
On 12/2/2010 12:41 PM, dgk wrote:



On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:53:22 -0500, Forrest
wrote:

On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest * wrote:
snip
My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.

No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
enough for you?

And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.

Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
steep hill and if you can't you're a "****head".

Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
to.

Correct. I would chose not to use it even if were available due to the
convenience factor, the fact that isn't available where I live just
makes the decision that much easier. Compared to rest of the western
world public transportation in the U.S. is a joke. If it were as
widespread and efficient as it is in Japan for example, then I might
have a different opinion.

I get it. The problem is the lack of choices in America. I agree.

It may get solved in the next 100 years though. Maybe we end the world
before.

"Forrest Hodge" wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
[...]

Forrest Hodge wrote:

You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.

If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".

How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?

Forrest, when you talk to TM, you are talking to the village simpleton. If
you continue to do it, you will discover that salient fact. He has **** for
brains and has hardly ever said anything that makes any sense. In short, he
is a blithering idiot.

Tom Sherman is a man of few words these days. He mainly likes to poke at
people. He is an elitist and thinks folks like you and me are stupid.

I hate motor vehicles myself, but that is where we are at as a society for
the moment. The future will be far different if things keep going the way
they are going. The US is well on its way to becoming a lot like Europe.
When we become as crowded and have a public transit system like they have,
who wouldn't use it to the fullest. The private motor vehicle will go the
way of the Dodo Bird and it will be good riddance. However, at present what
choice do we have.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Dec 3, 12:57*am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Forrest Hodge" wrote in message

... On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, T m Sherm n _ wrote:

[...]

Forrest Hodge wrote:
You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.

If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".

*How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?

Forrest, *when you talk to TM, you are talking to the village simpleton.. If
you continue to do it, you will discover that salient fact. He has **** for
brains and has hardly ever said anything that makes any sense. In short, he
is a blithering idiot.

You are the best in the circus...

http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/evil-clown-costume.jpg

A clown in old age is twice as sad.

On Dec 2, 6:39*pm, Forrest Hodge wrote:
snip
* How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?

geez, you want a list?

In the DFW Metroplex 1/3 of all air pollution comes from private motor
vehicle exhaust, a little less than 1/3 comes from other mobile
sources, and a little less than 1/3 comes from stationary industrial
sources. About 2% comes from natural sources that would not be a
problem without the anthropogenic sources. Even as we lower the amount
of pollution in the air we chase a moving target because it has been
discovered the damage caused to people by chronic exposure to
pollution gets worse even as the levels of pollution go down. Even as
smoking rates plummet lung disease of all kinds continues to get worse
as a result of pollution. And that doesn't even include the damage to
water supplies from finding and refining fossil fuels, the damage to
the soil from refining fossil fuels, the damage to groundwater
supplies from runoff from paved roads, the loss of CO2 sinks from
covering soil with paving, the conversion of farmland to housing
because providing parking for our cars takes up so much space that we
have to move into the country to find space to build.

How's that for starters? And keep in mind I'm saying this as a former
member of the SCCA and ISCA, I used to race sports cars and build
customs. I LIKE cars and I'm saying this.

On Dec 3, 12:03*pm, Opus wrote:
On Dec 2, 6:39*pm, Forrest Hodge wrote:

snip
* How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?

geez, you want a list?

In the DFW Metroplex 1/3 of all air pollution comes from private motor
vehicle exhaust, a little less than 1/3 comes from other mobile
sources, and a little less than 1/3 comes from stationary industrial
sources. About 2% comes from natural sources that would not be a
problem without the anthropogenic sources. Even as we lower the amount
of pollution in the air we chase a moving target because it has been
discovered the damage caused to people by chronic exposure to
pollution gets worse even as the levels of pollution go down. Even as
smoking rates plummet lung disease of all kinds continues to get worse
as a result of pollution. And that doesn't even include the damage to
water supplies from finding and refining fossil fuels, the damage to
the soil from refining fossil fuels, the damage to groundwater
supplies from runoff from paved roads, the loss of CO2 sinks from
covering soil with paving, the conversion of farmland to housing
because providing parking for our cars takes up so much space that we
have to move into the country to find space to build.

How's that for starters? And keep in mind I'm saying this as a former
member of the SCCA and ISCA, I used to race sports cars and build
customs. I LIKE cars and I'm saying this.

The late Paul Newman was into both RACING CARS and ENVIRONMENTALISM...
What they are basically proposing --his daughter too-- is that we use
more alternative transportation --public transportation or bicycles--
and leave the driving for Sundays or something.

I say this much, BUY LOCALLY BIKE LOCALLY to build COMMUNITY --not
Gated Community.

http://www.zazzle.com/community_tshi...61473793440879

On 12/2/2010 10:23 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:
On Dec 1, 10:29 pm, Forrest wrote:
On 12/1/2010 5:03 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average



backyard philosopher wrote:
On Dec 1, 4:53 pm, Forrest wrote:
On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:

On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest wrote:
snip
My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.

Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
take the vehicle in the subway.

No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.

Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
necessary for ****heads like you remains available.

****heads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
to name calling?

People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
enough for you?

And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.

Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
steep hill and if you can't you're a "****head".

Hey, there are no sidewalks either in most suburbs made for the SUV
so... what do we do, drive an SUV?

Now one question, HOW CAN YOU ENJOY DRIVING A SPORTS CAR IN AMERICA?
So many vigilantes blocking the road and so much predation in speeding
tickets that you feel like driving is for dummies.

I drive a car for dummies, some older Lexus....

(But Opus is right in pointing that out: the bicycle is the best
choice whenever possible)

If you live in suburbs and choose to ride a bike, that's your decision.
You can move to the city and live in a more bike friendly place. There
are trade offs to living an any given area.

The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?


How can I drive driving a sports car? Easy, back country roads and a
police force that concerns itself more with keeping violent offenders
off the streets more so that it does with the occasional hooning.

Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas.

"The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?"

I would think that with the much lower prevailing speeds and far more
traffic lights and such that riding the in the city would lend itself to
bike riding better. The difference in speeds between cars and bikes
isn't as much, and you usually can't go more than a 1/4 mile without
hitting red light.


"Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas."

I also have 1974 Triumph TR6, a proper roadster. The Miata is just a
knock off, sure it's a nice car to drive, but it has none of the soul
and personality of the real deal. For what it's worth, the TR6 gets
about the same mileage as the 400 HP Mustang. Naturally, given the
questionable reliability of the Triumph, it's only driven in the spring
and summer, never at night, and never more than 20 miles or so from
home. It's more of a hobby than a car if I'm honest.