going up?.....gas prices, that is...

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Fri May 04, 2007 1:15 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote:pedant (noun): one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge

Don't try to play the dictionary game with me, Skip. You're way the fuck out of your league.

It takes an imagination to look outside of the norms of society for solutions therefore that part is not applicable.

And I didn't start with the minutiae when I first chimed in, so the "unduly" part doesn't stick.

So, I still think you're better off calling me a "heretic".

dstol62
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 2:15 am
Contact:

Postby dstol62 » Sun May 06, 2007 4:22 pm


RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Wed May 09, 2007 1:04 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:RockHopper, do you have kids? If not, are you also opposed to your tax dollars supporting public education?

Yes, I have kids. I fully support our public schools. As a matter of fact, when I lived in the State of Oregon and the Assembly Republicans there insisted on writing me a check instead of earmarking "state income tax overcharges" for schools, I walked that check right on over to the nearest elementary school and signed it over to them.

Roads are a far different matter. I fully support highways for their intended purpose: To improve the efficiency of the transportation of commercial goods across the country (the trucking industry). This definitely benefits everyone every single day. However our highways today are being abused in the name of giving some people the “freedomâ€Â

TheBookPolice
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8533
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: The mystical Far East
Contact:

Postby TheBookPolice » Wed May 09, 2007 1:11 pm

[quote="RockHopper"]our highways today are being abused in the name of giving some people the “freedomâ€Â

RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Wed May 09, 2007 1:58 pm

[quote="TheBookPolice"][quote="RockHopper"]our highways today are being abused in the name of giving some people the “freedomâ€Â

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Wed May 09, 2007 2:17 pm

RockHopper wrote:While I agree that free movement is a basic right, the excessive application of that freedom in the form of choosing to live in a place where you are highly constrained in your choices for mobility outside of the automobile is a form of enslavement.

Please tell that to the descendents of someone who actually suffered the horrors of slavery, idiot. And please videotape your subsequent ass-kicking so all here can enjoy watching it over and over.

Oh, and please extend my deepest condolences to your children, who have to live with one of the biggest fucking morons ever to straddle a bike seat.

RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Wed May 09, 2007 2:33 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote:
RockHopper wrote:While I agree that free movement is a basic right, the excessive application of that freedom in the form of choosing to live in a place where you are highly constrained in your choices for mobility outside of the automobile is a form of enslavement.

Please tell that to the descendents of someone who actually suffered the horrors of slavery, idiot. And please videotape your subsequent ass-kicking so all here can enjoy watching it over and over.

Oh, and please extend my deepest condolences to your children, who have to live with one of the biggest fucking morons ever to straddle a bike seat.

How obtusely you wield the invective! You have wildly exaggerated my application of the word "enslavement", which I quite clearly spelled out in the second paragraph. Perhaps you have attention deficit disorder?

My bike seat is saving me $6000 in car costs per year, all of which is going right into my children's 509 educational savings account. If only every child was as fortunate.

Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby Chuck_Schick » Wed May 09, 2007 2:48 pm

RockHopper wrote:You have wildly exaggerated my application of the word "enslavement", which I quite clearly spelled out in the second paragraph.

Some words don't lend themselves well to hyperbole. I would contend that "enslave" is one of them.

Your use of such words for such effect only makes you sound like a bigger idiot freak than you've already mustered so far in this discussion.

A Herculean feat, that.

RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Wed May 09, 2007 3:09 pm

Chuck_Schick wrote:
RockHopper wrote:You have wildly exaggerated my application of the word "enslavement", which I quite clearly spelled out in the second paragraph.

Some words don't lend themselves well to hyperbole. I would contend that "enslave" is one of them.

Sadly, dictionary.com disagrees with you:

en-slave: to make a slave of; reduce to slavery: His drug addiction has completely enslaved him.

It is hardly a stretch to replace "drug" in the example above with the word "automobile". Therefore I have to conclude that you were just being obtuse.

So Chucky, have you anything to say about the two questions I asked? :

Why do we need to incentivize suburban driving? Wouldn't it be nice if motorists who choose to live very far from where they did business paid the full cost of their choice?

Or will you revert to filling this discussion with an endless array of super-stinky red-herring?

Fat.The.Gangster
Forum Addict
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Easy Street

Postby Fat.The.Gangster » Wed May 09, 2007 3:59 pm

RockHopper wrote:Or will you revert to filling this discussion with an endless array of super-stinky red-herring?


Discussion? Your contributions to this thread, such as they are, have been in the form of myopic proselytizing, bent solely for accusations and allegations, and less on engagement.

The minute this "discussion" becomes less of a one-way conduit of vapid arguments based on your unfounded accusations, I, and other forons, will happily oblige in dialogue. Until then, however, you can expect more invective to combat your rote douchery.

RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Wed May 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Fat.The.Gangster wrote:
RockHopper wrote:Or will you revert to filling this discussion with an endless array of super-stinky red-herring?


Discussion? Your contributions to this thread, such as they are, have been in the form of myopic proselytizing, bent solely for accusations and allegations, and less on engagement.

The minute this "discussion" becomes less of a one-way conduit of vapid arguments based on your unfounded accusations, I, and other forons, will happily oblige in dialogue. Until then, however, you can expect more invective to combat your rote douchery.

Um, this discussion did become more than a one-way conduit the instant I asked the two questions that nobody is answering:

Why do we need to incentivize suburban driving? Wouldn't it be nice if motorists who choose to live very far from where they did business paid the full cost of their choice?

That certainly sounds like an open invitation for rational dialog if I ever heard one.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9648
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed May 09, 2007 4:25 pm

RockHopper wrote: I asked the two questions that nobody is answering ...
I'll answer your questions when you answer the ones I posed to you earlier:

1. So what if you only use roads "infrequently"? As long as you use them, they have to be maintained, correct?
2. If you're looking to assign blame and/or pass along the cost burden based on usage, it ain't "motorists" that are the problem, it's trucks, so why are you blaming the average Joe and not corporate fleets?

RockHopper
Forum Addict
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:47 pm
Location: Exxon Worldwide Headquarters, Irving Texas
Contact:

Postby RockHopper » Wed May 09, 2007 4:53 pm

Prof. Wagstaff wrote:
RockHopper wrote: I asked the two questions that nobody is answering ...
I'll answer your questions when you answer the ones I posed to you earlier:

Ok then, I'll answer your questions and we shall see what happens next:
1. So what if you only use roads "infrequently"? As long as you use them, they have to be maintained, correct?

Yes, they need to be maintained, but the amount of use plays a huge role in how much it costs to maintain those roads. If everyone chooses to participate in rush hour in an single occupancy SUV, it means there will be a lot more demand for additional lanes at the critical paths within the transportation system. Additionally, the wear and tear an SUV applies to the road is much much greater than what my bike imparts.

here is a nice summary:

http://www.vtpi.org/tcasum.pdf

2. If you're looking to assign blame and/or pass along the cost burden based on usage, it ain't "motorists" that are the problem, it's trucks, so why are you blaming the average Joe and not corporate fleets?

Trucks are what the highway system is designed to accomodate. Trucks are what I fully support. They lower the cost of living for everyone by making transportaion of goods cheap. I am all for subsidizing this.

Exessive commuting time on the other hand, has much less of a direct benefit to me. I am skeptical that this needs to be subsidized. If someone dislikes other people so much that they need to live 40 miles from work to get an acceptable level of isolation, then let them do it, but I see no reason to subsidize them.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21625
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed May 09, 2007 5:07 pm

RockHopper wrote:If someone dislikes other people so much that they need to live 40 miles from work to get an acceptable level of isolation, then let them do it, but I see no reason to subsidize them.

I suppose some want the isolation. Others just want affordable housing.

Prof. Wagstaff
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9648
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2002 6:35 pm
Contact:

Postby Prof. Wagstaff » Wed May 09, 2007 6:23 pm

RockHopper wrote:
Prof. Wagstaff wrote: So what if you only use roads "infrequently"? As long as you use them, they have to be maintained, correct?

Yes, they need to be maintained, but the amount of use plays a huge role in how much it costs to maintain those roads.

Stop right there.
If they need to be maintained then they need to be maintained. Do you make similar arguments about where the rest of your tax dollars go? Should carnivores not have to pay as much as everyone else towards the agriculture budget? Should Fundamentalists be able to opt out of paying for science and technology? Should city dwellers have to pay less for preserving our national parks?

As for arguing about relative amounts of wear and tear, you sound ludicrous complaining that SUVs do more damage than your bike when you turn around and say this:

Trucks are what the highway system is designed to accomodate. Trucks are what I fully support. They lower the cost of living for everyone by making transportaion of goods cheap. I am all for subsidizing this.
Trucks do far, far, far, far more damage to roads than any SUV ever will.
But let me respond to a few of your other points quickly.
1. Since when are we only discussing "the highway system"?
2. You are wrong that highways were developed for trucks. Highways were most definitely originally designed to accomodate motorists. The first were auto trails and they were certainly the product of the enthusiasm of motorists and not of any concerted effort to accomodate trucks. When the U.S. Highway System eliminated the auto trails, they too were designed for moving people, not goods. The muhc more modern Interstates, on the other hand, were designed to accomodate heavy truck traffic, true, but they were more specifically intended to accomodate the quick transportation of military vehicles and personnel and also to move people in the case of disasters.
3. Trucks don't really lower the cost of living if they're destroying our roads and shifting that cost to taxpayers, now are they?


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests