My first Prius rage

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 09:36:43 -0700, Geoff Miller wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> Hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> writes:
>[color=green]
>> Wait, wait...you live in San Fran and you're calling me a Lefty?!?![/color]
>
> "Called," past tense.
>
> What does my living in the San Francisco area have to do with the
> price of tea in China?[/color]

I hear San Fran is to the Left of Amherst. Shoot, they didn't want a
'floating museum' (retired Navy vessel) because of the Navy's stance on
homosexuality!
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> I guess you would know...I live in the Northampton, MA area, which
>> has been called the San Fran of the East.[/color]
>
> Ahh, Lezzieville! I was there several years ago, as a hamster of fact.
> Didn't meet any Smithies, though.[/color]


I don't know how it got out that Smithies are lezzies!
I proved quite the opposite in my younger days.
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> But I am certainly NOT a Lefty![/color]
>
> Well, you must've said *something* to make me think otherwise, 'cuz
> I don't make that accusation lightly.
>
>
>
> Geoff[/color]

_______________________

: Here's the deal. Faster drivers don't want to force slower drivers
: to move at their (the faster drivers') preferred pace. They just
: want to get around them.
[color=blue]
> Tough shit. Deal with it, instead of acting like an asshole.[/color]

Let me get this straight: I'm an asshole if I make it clear that
I want to get around someone, but he isn't an asshole for getting
in my way to begin with? Your bias is showing. I bet you're a
Democrat.
__________________________


Um, I am also Vash The Stampede. Depends which reader/newsgroup I'm in.

null wrote:
[color=blue]
>Yr 'Umble Narrator, like Geoff and others in this thread, likes to
>get where he's going with a minimum of time wasted by some schmuck's
>second neuron to fire. For the record, the daily driver is a Jetta,
>curb weight 2300 lbs. You might care to know in Europe slow drivers
>are expected to get out of the way, dawdling at green lights is
>considered quite rude, yet few vehicles there would be considered
>"bloated". Just an FYI, y'understand.[/color]

One of the auto magazines mentioned the Jetta is considered a
fuddy-duddy old man's car in Europe.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Struck me funny, so I put it in the dictionary:
[url]http://www.pseudodictionary.com/priuscidal[/url]

On 24 Apr 2006 17:27:35 -0700, against all advice, something compelled
[email]joel-garry@home.com[/email], to say:
[color=blue]
>null wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Yr 'Umble Narrator, like Geoff and others in this thread, likes to
>>get where he's going with a minimum of time wasted by some schmuck's
>>second neuron to fire. For the record, the daily driver is a Jetta,
>>curb weight 2300 lbs. You might care to know in Europe slow drivers
>>are expected to get out of the way, dawdling at green lights is
>>considered quite rude, yet few vehicles there would be considered
>>"bloated". Just an FYI, y'understand.[/color]
>
>One of the auto magazines mentioned the Jetta is considered a
>fuddy-duddy old man's car in Europe.[/color]

Well I guess that settles that. Some unknown author published an article
in a forgotten magazine at some time unmentioned is such an authoritative
citation. It's official, Mr. Null is an old man.

Move along, folks. The argument has been won. Nothing to see here.
--

We can not defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Edward R. Murrow

Moonbat <Luna@tic.com> writes:

: Saying that a certain type of behavior is *characteristic*
: of a group isn't the same thing as saying that it's *unique*
: to that group.
[color=blue]
> Read again:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Fucking 'Pious' driver in a 35 mph
>> zone, one lane in each direction.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Looks like a generization to me![/color]


No, looks like an observation about a specific incident
involving a particular Prius and its driver.

What's wrong with generalizations? I note that you take
issue with the *fact* of an (alleged) generalization, but
not with the accuracy of it. I'd think you'd be more con-
cerned about the latter.



Geoff

--
"Round noses were good enough for Lee Harvey Oswald,
they're good enough for me." -- Rich McAllister

Moonbat <Luna@tic.com> writes:

: What does my living in the San Francisco area have to do with the
: price of tea in China?
[color=blue]
> I hear San Fran is to the Left of Amherst. Shoot, they didn't want a
> 'floating museum' (retired Navy vessel) because of the Navy's stance
> on homosexuality![/color]

I don't know which one is further to the left. I'd be a pretty close
match, I suspect.

Anyway, there's more to the USS Iowa affair than the Navy's stance
on homosexuality (a stance which isn't even unique to the Navy, but
which is common to all the armed forces). If that was the stated
objection, then it was only a pretext. San Francisco has a long
history of being antimilitary in general. For instance, every year
at Fleet Week when the Blue Angels start practicing for their display,
the leftist moonbats come out of the woodwork and write screechy
letters to the editor of the San Francisco _Chronicle_.

[color=blue]
> I don't know how it got out that Smithies are lezzies!
> I proved quite the opposite in my younger days.[/color]

I got the information from a Smithie. (She calls herself a lesbian,
but she sure gets a lot of dick.)



Geoff

--
"Round noses were good enough for Lee Harvey Oswald,
they're good enough for me." -- Rich McAllister

"Geoff Miller" <geoffm@u1.netgate.net> wrote in message
news:e2ams9$q6i@u1.netgate.net...[color=blue]
> (I'd really like to know where you found a study which purports to
> show that most Prius owners in particular have degrees. I'm curious
> what sort of insecure wankstain would even think of wondering about
> that, much less go to the trouble of obtaining data. Liberals have
> this pathetic need to believe that they're smarter and more educated
> than the rest of us -- as though even if true, that somehow inoculated
> them against their own instinctive idiocy.)[/color]

Average age is 39
Average income is 75 grand

I don't report my family income on warrantee cards so the latter may be off
by a few dollars :)

Geoff Miller wrote:[color=blue]
> ToMh <tlhumm@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> [Prii]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Then maybe not. Maybe your [sic] an insecure bonehead who is just
> >> jealous of the intelectual [sic] crowd who can afford a car like
> >> the Prius.[/color][/color]
>
> : Yeah, right. I think of that every time I step out into my driveway
> : and catch sight of my brace of Benzes. I feel so inadequate! <snicker>
>[color=green]
> > Well something about them threatens you.[/color]
>
> I feel "threatened" by a *car?* Yow! That's certainly a new one.
>
> What is it with you libbos and this obsession with the idea of people
> "feeling threatened" -- as though that were the only possible explan-
> ation for anyone holding views that differ from your own? I think it's
> a form of psychological self-aggrandizement -- a way of bullshitting
> yourselves into believing that your worldview is so mighty and righteous
> that others cower in fear before it.
>
> Puh-LEEZE. You really need to get over that. That's like looking at
> your dick through the wrong end of a telescope in order to make it
> appear bigger.
>
> As a matter of fact, not only am I not "threatened" by Priuses, I
> actually kind of like them despite their shortcomings (and the sort
> of people who often drive them). I think they're interesting tech-
> nically, and I really like the way the second-generation ones look.
>
> (The same applies to the new Civic Hybrid, by the way. Both cars
> are a quantum leap forward, styling-wise, inside and out -- obviously
> intended to appeal to the sort of people who's open to something new
> and different.)
>[/color]

Well you certainly are threatened enough to ramble on for 5 paragraphs
defending a stupid argument.

[color=blue]
>
> : The idea that Prius owners are "intellectual" really seems to be
> : quite important to you for some reason.
>[color=green]
> > I only pointed that out because you somehow think they are fools.[/color]
>
> I didn't say I think they're fools. I said I think they're insecure.
> That isn't even close to the same thing, now is it?
>[/color]
Whatever[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > I'm not defending them so much as I'm flaming an idiot who is
> > threatened by them.[/color]
>
> But you never demonstrated that I am, in fact, "threatened" by them.
> That was merely your assumption -- and a rather baseless one it was,
> as we've seen.
>
> And as far as my being an idiot is concerned, by reasoning abilities
> and awesome, choad-stiffening command of the English language speak for
> themselves, dear boy. In contrast, if brains were gasoline, you wouldn't
> have enough to drive a moped once around a goddam Cheerio. Ah, well; like
> the man said, the world needs ditch-diggers, too.
>[/color]

I guess you can aways have that when you can't support your claims.

[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > And one who has been brainwashed to hate anybody who gives a rats ass
> > about the environment.[/color]
>
> You haven't the faintest idea who I hate, if anybody, you wheezing spud.
> Maybe next year, when you're in the sixth grade, your teacher will explain
> the distinction between hatred and ridicule.
>[/color]
All your rants are hate filled. You're a hate filled unfulfilled little
man.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Or stupid enough to buy a Diesel Mercedes in order to make me feel
> > better about myself.[/color]
>
> I bought a diesel Mercedes in order to feel better about myself? That's
> the only possible reason why anyobody would own one? At all?
>[/color]
I certainly can't think of any other reason.
[color=blue]
> You know, that raises an interesting point: I've noticed that my driving
> a Mercedes seems to mean a lot more to other people than it does to me.
> I bought a car, not a lifestyle. If others insist on believing differ-
> ently, to the point of incurring an excess-emotional-baggage fee, that's
> their lookout. Makes no ne'ermind to me.
>[/color]
But people who buy Prius's are doing just because of the "lifestyle",
as you think.[color=blue]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> What kind of moron are you?[/color][/color]
>
> : I'm the kind of moron who's too smart to ask someone else a question,
> : and then call him a moron before I'd even seen his answer, is what kind
> : of moron I am. You?
>[color=green]
> > But not smart enough to know what a rhetorical question is.[/color]
>
> But plenty smart enough to turn a rhetorical question back on the person
> who posed it -- making him look, if anything, like even more of an idiot
> than he already did.
>[/color]
Ah, sure you did.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > You have no clue as to what your talking about, new batteries are
> > $2-3000 and with a 10 year 150,000 mile warrantee, plus Toyota is
> > claiming that the batteries should last the life of the car.[/color]
>
> If they last the life of the car, that'll be well in excess of 10 years
> or 150K miles. Cars don't turn into pumpkins at 100K miles anymore. And
> Toyotas are especially durable. I know this, having owned three. So
> like I said, Prius owners might as well bend over and greeze up their
> bungholes, financially speaking, 'cause they're in for a shloonking.
>[/color]

Of course you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Of course you have no idea as to what you are talking about.[/color]
>
> You are mistaken, as you're no doubt now all too aware.
>[/color]
Then post a fact instead of some crap pulled out of your ass.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > I'm sure that would happen. WAI[/color]
>
> "WAI?" Did somebody nip at your nutsack with a red-hot pair of
> needlenose pliers or something?
>
>[color=green]
> > Even with good resale value, a Mercedes has a very high cost of
> > ownership.[/color]
>
> Nice attempt at diversion. We were talking about resale value, not
> cost of ownership.
>[/color]

I'm talking cost of ownership, that's what really matters.
[color=blue]
> Anyway, I'll play. I've owned four and presently own two, and none
> of them had a high cost of ownership. How many have _you_ owned?
>[/color]
None, but if you say so I won't argue with you. Are you buying new?
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Do you even know what the cost of ownership is for a Prius?[/color]
>
> No, and I don't care, because I never made any claim about the
> ongoing cost of ownership of a Prius, except for the eventual
> replacement of the batteries
>[/color]

That is cost of ownership.

[color=blue]
>
> [oil from ANWR]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Which will have pratically zero affect.[/color][/color]
>
> : Bullshit. That's just more of that received lefty "wisdom" that you
> : people are so enamored of.
>[color=green]
> > Provide a link please, and not from the petroleum companies.[/color]
>
> [url]http://www.anwr.org/features/lessrefuge.htm[/url]
>
> (From an editorial by Senator Frank H. Murkowski (AK) in the
> Washington Post)
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "The environmentalists say the trade-off isn't good enough to justify
> the development. In other words, they don't think there's enough oil
> there to warrant the exploration.
>
> "The U.S. Geological Survey and the federal government's Energy Infor-
> mation Administration estimate that there are possibly 16 billion
> barrels of oil beneath the surface in the coastal plain. Even at the
> low end--with about 3.2 billion barrels--the field would be the
> second-largest ever discovered in the United States.
>
> "The first is Prudhoe Bay, which was estimatedin 1968 to hold 9 billion
> barrels of oil, but which has produced nearly 13 billion barrels--or 20
> to 25 percent of the oil produced in this nation for the last 23 years.
> If there were 16 billion barrels in the coastal plain, it would substi-
> tute for what we would otherwise have to import from Saudi Arabia fora
> the next 30 years "
>
> Tra-la, tra-la, tra-la. That was the very first link that came up
> when I Googled for "ANWR drilling."
>
> What the eco-bunnies fail to grasp is that just because ANWR won't
> be a panacea, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile to exploit
> the oil that's there. Reducing our dependence on Middle Eastern oil
> will be an incremental process. In addition to drilling in Alaska,
> we need to look into increased drilling off the coast of California.
>[/color]

Well good for you, you found the one Government sponsored pro ANWR
sight.
Now read the 50 other independent studies explaining why that is all
bullshit.

[color=blue]
>
> [environmentalism has become a secular religion]
>[color=green]
> > I don't find that strange at all. What I do find is that you have a
> > very self centered and uncaring view of the world. If it doesn't
> > affect you, then the hell with it.[/color]
>
> The idea that you have any idea of my view of the world, based on
> my views on a single issue, is preposterous.[/color]

I'm responding to what you said. Do you not believe what you just
posted.
How can you think it's preposterous to think I know what you're view
of the world is (even though you just told me) but turn around and have
just as a preposterous view about environmentalists.
[color=blue]
>
> You know what would affect me? Shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel,
> or high prices related to same.
>
>[color=green]
> > I really don't believe it will "destroy" the region either, but I sure
> > its not as clean as the oil companies say and not as damaging as the
> > environmentalist say, that's just my gut feeling. If I was convinced it
> > would benefit anybody other than the oil companies, I wouldn't oppose
> > it.[/color]
>
> How about the people who'll buy the fuel that'll be made from the oil?
> Won't they benefit? In order for the oil companies to profit from
> selling petroleum products, they'd have to sell those products to con-
> sumers, right? And those consumers wouldn't by them unless they needed
> them. Like all business transactions, it'd be a symbiotic relationship.
>[/color]
But, only if the price is lower, and if it really does reduce our
dependency on foreign oil.
If that's the case, then yes, if not then it's just more profits for
the oil companies at the expense of the American public.

[color=blue]
>
> : "With no benefit to the public?" First you say that the sale of oil from
> : AnWR will just make the oil companies richer. Then you claim that there'll
> : be no benefit to the public. Uh, in order for the oil companies to get
> : richer, they'll have to sell that oil to somebody. And the people who'll
> : buy it are, by definition, people who'll have a need for it -- folks who
> : will benefit from it, in other words.
>[/color]

[color=blue][color=green]
> > Interesting reasoning, but not quite right. Oil companies make more
> > profit from selling their own oil than buying it.[/color]
>
> Nobody makes a profit by buying something. The point here is *benefit,*
> not profit. The oil companies will benefit from selling gasoline, but
> the public will benefit from having gasoline available for them to buy.
>
> Not wanting to have petroleum products available for consumers to buy
> just because the oil companies will profit from the sale is like cutting
> off your nose to spite your face. Profit is the whole point. If no one
> profited from selling things, then nothing would be sold.
>
>
> : You really haven't thought this through, have you? Conservatives
> : think; liberals *emote.*
>[/color]

People who really think things through don't consider themselves
liberal or conservative.

[color=blue][color=green]
> > Just the opposite. It's obvious you are just spouting the talk show
> > line.[/color]
>
> Imagine that. And to think that the only talk shows I listen to are
> on National Pinko Radio.
>[/color]
Good for you. NPR does a good job of giving all sides equal time.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Any independent thought and you'd have your own, different, opinion.[/color]
>
> That's mighty convenient, I'm sure.
>
>[color=green]
> > A party based on lies and corruption can't stay in power too long.[/color]
>
> Which begs the question of whether the Republican Party is, ibn fact,
> "based on lies and corruption."
>[/color]

I guess I should have said a party whose current leaders are corrupt
liars.


[color=blue]
>
>[/color]

Geoff Miller wrote:[color=blue]
> ToMh <tlhumm@hotmail.com> writes:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> And we can tell what kind of person you are by your unbridled use of
> >> Ad Hominem attacks.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > That's right I'm attacking his character, that's what this argument is
> > about dumbshit.[/color]
>[/color]
Not all of it.[color=blue]
>
> No, the argument is about why people buy Priuses, you pathetic little
> ****-knocker.
>
> Congratulations on finally posting an article that didn't contain any
> misspellings.
>[/color]
I know how much that upsets you.
[color=blue]
>
>
> Geoff
>
> --
> "I used to be a loser-in-denial, too, until the lacrosse team
> shoved a parking cone up my ass." -- _Billy Madison_[/color]

Geoff Miller wrote:[color=blue]
> ToMh <tlhumm@hotmail.com> writes:[/color]
[color=blue]
>
> As for racism, *you're* the one who used the racial slur. All I did
> was acknowledge that. It isn't _my_ fault that you're too much of a
> dimbulb to have known what it meant without somebody clueing you in.
>[/color]

Is slopehead a racial slur? I thought it was slang for a stupid person.
I apologize for that, I guess I'm not up on my racist terminology.

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:54:07 -0700, Geoff Miller wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> Moonbat <Luna@tic.com> writes:
>
> : What does my living in the San Francisco area have to do with the
> : price of tea in China?
>[color=green]
>> I hear San Fran is to the Left of Amherst. Shoot, they didn't want a
>> 'floating museum' (retired Navy vessel) because of the Navy's stance
>> on homosexuality![/color]
>
> I don't know which one is further to the left. I'd be a pretty close
> match, I suspect.
>
> Anyway, there's more to the USS Iowa affair than the Navy's stance
> on homosexuality (a stance which isn't even unique to the Navy, but
> which is common to all the armed forces). If that was the stated
> objection, then it was only a pretext. San Francisco has a long
> history of being antimilitary in general. For instance, every year
> at Fleet Week when the Blue Angels start practicing for their display,
> the leftist moonbats come out of the woodwork and write screechy
> letters to the editor of the San Francisco _Chronicle_.[/color]

Hey, I resemble that remark!
[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>> I don't know how it got out that Smithies are lezzies!
>> I proved quite the opposite in my younger days.[/color]
>
> I got the information from a Smithie. (She calls herself a lesbian,
> but she sure gets a lot of dick.)[/color]

So do a lot of them!

Um, you do realize I'm Hachi/Vash, right? Sometimes my reader doesn't
swith my nym back to what it's supposed to be!
[color=blue]
>
>
>
> Geoff[/color]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:05:05 GMT, against all advice, something
compelled Moonbat <Luna@tic.com>, to say:
[color=blue]
>Um, you do realize I'm Hachi/Vash, right?[/color]

It's ok. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, sex,
religion, age, national origin, or political bias. I'm not sure
what sort of disability Hachi/Vash is, but you are welcome to
participate in spite of it.
--

We can not defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.

Edward R. Murrow

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:38:17 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:05:05 GMT, against all advice, something
> compelled Moonbat <Luna@tic.com>, to say:
>[color=green]
>>Um, you do realize I'm Hachi/Vash, right?[/color]
>
> It's ok. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, sex,
> religion, age, national origin, or political bias. I'm not sure
> what sort of disability Hachi/Vash is, but you are welcome to
> participate in spite of it.[/color]

Thanks!
That's mighty White of you!

Moonbat wrote:[color=blue]
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:38:17 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote:
>[color=green]
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:05:05 GMT, against all advice, something
> > compelled Moonbat <Luna@tic.com>, to say:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Um, you do realize I'm Hachi/Vash, right?[/color]
> >
> > It's ok. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, sex,
> > religion, age, national origin, or political bias. I'm not sure
> > what sort of disability Hachi/Vash is, but you are welcome to
> > participate in spite of it.[/color]
>
> Thanks!
> That's mighty White of you![/color]

Steve is being particularly generous today. I wonder what happened.


Regards,

Steve

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:48:58 -0700, Steve wrote:
[color=blue]
> Moonbat wrote:[color=green]
>> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:38:17 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:05:05 GMT, against all advice, something
>> > compelled Moonbat <Luna@tic.com>, to say:
>> >
>> >>Um, you do realize I'm Hachi/Vash, right?
>> >
>> > It's ok. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, sex,
>> > religion, age, national origin, or political bias. I'm not sure
>> > what sort of disability Hachi/Vash is, but you are welcome to
>> > participate in spite of it.[/color]
>>
>> Thanks!
>> That's mighty White of you![/color]
>
> Steve is being particularly generous today. I wonder what happened.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steve[/color]


Ha d a cup of tea and a scone?

--
In the grand scheme fo things...
What difference does it make?

Hachiroku wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:48:58 -0700, Steve wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Moonbat wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 17:38:17 -0700, Steve Daniels wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:05:05 GMT, against all advice, something
> >> > compelled Moonbat <Luna@tic.com>, to say:
> >> >
> >> >>Um, you do realize I'm Hachi/Vash, right?
> >> >
> >> > It's ok. We don't discriminate on the basis of race, sex,
> >> > religion, age, national origin, or political bias. I'm not sure
> >> > what sort of disability Hachi/Vash is, but you are welcome to
> >> > participate in spite of it.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> That's mighty White of you![/color]
> >
> > Steve is being particularly generous today. I wonder what happened.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Steve[/color]
>
>
> Ha d a cup of tea and a scone?[/color]

No, it's more likeley that he had a stuffed envelope.
[color=blue]
> In the grand scheme fo things...
> What difference does it make?[/color]

But I wasn't there when it happened so it's not like I can prove it.


Regards,

Steve