Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>> Kayak44 wrote: >>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but >>> doesn't want to hear.
>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad as >>> anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. Excuses are >>> just that, excuses.
>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it. >> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would have to >> go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would have to take >> - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit just to feel >> half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to admit it or not. >> Public transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how you >> slice it.
> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it. If > you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it, so > knock off the disingenuous whining.
I will agree with a previous poster - you are an ass. Look, idiot, in this economy, I'm not selling for less than the property is worth and moving to an inner city apartment, just to fulfill your requirements. My city's public transportion sucks. Why? Because we're basically a smaller version of Detroit. So unless you've walked a mile in my shoes, go suck an egg.
Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>> Kayak44 wrote: >>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but >>> doesn't want to hear.
>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad >>> as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. >>> Excuses are just that, excuses.
>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it.
>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would >> have to go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would >> have to take - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit >> just to feel half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to >> admit it or not. Public transportation is not an option for >> everyone, no matter how you slice it. > Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
Its much more complicated than that when the cheapest places to live can have no real public transport and a cheap car can end up producing much lower costs per year than paying much more to 'live' where there is decent public transport.
> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
Doesnt necessarily make any sense to do that.
> so knock off the disingenuous whining.
Everyone is just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you dont have a clue.
Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>> Kayak44 wrote: >>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but >>> doesn't want to hear.
>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad as >>> anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. Excuses are >>> just that, excuses.
>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it. >> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would have to >> go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would have to take >> - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit just to feel >> half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to admit it or not. >> Public transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how you >> slice it.
> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
It is generally dictated by income.
> If > you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized.
So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
*example chosen for sample size.
> so > knock off the disingenuous whining.
She really does a workman's job replying to you on this little snip...
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:07:25 -0400, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote: >My city's public transportion sucks. Why? Because we're basically a >smaller version of Detroit. So unless you've walked a mile in my shoes, >go suck an egg.
You don't live in Syracuse, do you? The public transportation here sucks the big shitola. I believe they only got bus service to the airport a few years ago. Unbelievable. America has only gone backwards since the adoption of the "automobile" as our saviour. In the 20's Syracuse had a network of electric trolleys that went everywhere and were safe, silent and affordable. Syracuse also had a good train system that actually went all the way out to resorts in the adirondacks and Sylvan Beach on Oneida Lake (Syracuse also had coal burning trains that ran right through downtown's streets, which wasn't great, but it was public transportation). Then the car came and the trolley system was trashed, the train schedules were cut back to nothing and the dreaded buses with their shitty schedules taking forever to get anywhere and going through the slum areas took hold.
Improvement! Thank god for the automobile! I was in Melbourne a few weeks ago and using their trolley system, I thought "even America's smallest cities used to have these." What a shame America has trashed what worked in the past, and continues to work in other countries. It's sad.
Napoleon wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:07:25 -0400, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>> My city's public transportion sucks. Why? Because we're basically a >> smaller version of Detroit. So unless you've walked a mile in my shoes, >> go suck an egg.
> You don't live in Syracuse, do you? The public transportation here > sucks the big shitola. I believe they only got bus service to the > airport a few years ago. Unbelievable. America has only gone backwards > since the adoption of the "automobile" as our saviour. In the 20's > Syracuse had a network of electric trolleys that went everywhere and > were safe, silent and affordable. Syracuse also had a good train > system that actually went all the way out to resorts in the > adirondacks and Sylvan Beach on Oneida Lake (Syracuse also had coal > burning trains that ran right through downtown's streets, which wasn't > great, but it was public transportation). Then the car came and the > trolley system was trashed, the train schedules were cut back to > nothing and the dreaded buses with their shitty schedules taking > forever to get anywhere and going through the slum areas took hold.
> Improvement! Thank god for the automobile! I was in Melbourne a few > weeks ago and using their trolley system, I thought "even America's > smallest cities used to have these." What a shame America has trashed > what worked in the past, and continues to work in other countries. > It's sad.
Very similar here in PA. I have a DVD made from a tape that was produced from old color film that a local guy shot in the late 1940s. There were literally electric trolleys everywhere around here plus an electrified rapid transit interurban railway that ran 20 minute headways 24x7. If you weren't around then you would never realize the elaborate transit infrastructure we had unless you saw a film like this.
Its very similar in Japan. You can go practically anywhere there efficiently on rail.
My understanding is that GM and Firestone are what really helped it all disappear in the US. They went from town to town and found the right politicians to hand envelopes to. This would help them decide that GM buses with Firestone tires were really the way to go.
Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>> you are an ass. >> Look, idiot
> How about you get back to me when you have a rational argument instead > of all this emotional Ad Hominem?
Ad Hominem must be your newest fad phrase. And you want me to stop the emotional Ad Hominem? So far in this thread, we've heard this from you:
"Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops up with this "I can't use public transit" BS."
"Well, Mr. Clueless Weasel,"
"Heh - you are so full of shit your eyes are brown. You couldn't have PLONKed me because GOOGLE GROUPS DOESN'T HAVE KILLFILES, YOU LYING SACK OF SHIT!"
Your lifestyle is not feasible for everyone, which just about everyone else on this thread had pointed out, but we are talking to a brick wall. I have better things to do - like laundry.
"Marsha" <m...@xeb.net> wrote in message news:hchktu$urb$1@news.datemas.de... > Scott in SoCal wrote: >> Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>>> you are an ass. Look, idiot
>> How about you get back to me when you have a rational argument instead >> of all this emotional Ad Hominem?
> Ad Hominem must be your newest fad phrase. And you want me to stop the > emotional Ad Hominem? So far in this thread, we've heard this from you:
> "Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops > up with this "I can't use public transit" BS."
> "Well, Mr. Clueless Weasel,"
> "Heh - you are so full of shit your eyes are brown. You couldn't have > PLONKed me because GOOGLE GROUPS DOESN'T HAVE KILLFILES, YOU LYING > SACK OF SHIT!"
> Your lifestyle is not feasible for everyone, which just about everyone > else on this thread had pointed out, but we are talking to a brick wall. I > have better things to do - like laundry.
> Marsha
Heh. He thinks I couldn't have PLONKed him because I use GoogleGroups? Yeah, that would be true if I didn't use AIOE to READ all newsgroups 99% of the time. Again, Scottie has reading comprehension issues. Must be the giant cloud of smug obscuring the screen.
> Last time on misc.consumers, "sr" <solo...@uninets.net> said:
>>> It never fails.
>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops >>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe >>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has >>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live >>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live >>> someplace else.
>>=True, and I'm in the progress. Believe me , I didn't stick here for my >>health, >>I had family obligation, that recently ,are no more. Some people are where >>they >>are for many reasons. >>Are you a Preacher? Just asking
> Nope! Not even close.
>>Bet you live in some all around the year warm climate, also.
> I do now, but I grew up in Chicago. I actually used transit more when > I lived there than I do now, primarily because the transit system > there is so much better.
>>You are just a tad better than the rest of the herd, aren't you.
> Not better, just different priorities. Somehow I managed to purchase a > house that is within walking distance of four grocery stores, a dozen > restaurants, a medical and dental office building, dry cleaners, hair > salons, two bus lines, and a Metrolink commuter rail station.
> The herd typically places things like square footage and age of the > house at a higher priority than the things I listed. If those had been > my priorities, I'd have bought a McMansion out in BFE and been stuck > driving on the 91 freeway for 2 hours every day. OTOH, when gasoline > was up over $4/gallon, not being a slave to my car came in mighty > handy. :)
>> Yea, try in with snow up your backside, House is >>for sale come see how long you last in the climate. You would be >>graveling, >>come Spring.
> I spent the first 30 years or so of my life in a cold climate, so I'd > last a lot longer than you think.
Evidently you lived within the city, rural living is all about self sufficiency, and it can be a killer in the winter time. No one, any distance around. for some people. Had a neighbor die on his doorstep during a blizzard. I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival. Any you are young, makes a difference. Glad you are enjoying your life.
>>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops >>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe >>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has >>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live >>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live >>>> someplace else. >>> =True, and I'm in the progress. Believe me , I didn't stick here for my >>> health, >>> I had family obligation, that recently ,are no more. Some people are where >>> they >>> are for many reasons. >>> Are you a Preacher? Just asking >> Nope! Not even close.
>>> Bet you live in some all around the year warm climate, also. >> I do now, but I grew up in Chicago. I actually used transit more when >> I lived there than I do now, primarily because the transit system >> there is so much better.
>>> You are just a tad better than the rest of the herd, aren't you. >> Not better, just different priorities. Somehow I managed to purchase a >> house that is within walking distance of four grocery stores, a dozen >> restaurants, a medical and dental office building, dry cleaners, hair >> salons, two bus lines, and a Metrolink commuter rail station.
>> The herd typically places things like square footage and age of the >> house at a higher priority than the things I listed. If those had been >> my priorities, I'd have bought a McMansion out in BFE and been stuck >> driving on the 91 freeway for 2 hours every day. OTOH, when gasoline >> was up over $4/gallon, not being a slave to my car came in mighty >> handy. :)
>>> Yea, try in with snow up your backside, House is >>> for sale come see how long you last in the climate. You would be >>> graveling, >>> come Spring. >> I spent the first 30 years or so of my life in a cold climate, so I'd >> last a lot longer than you think.
> Evidently you lived within the city, rural living is all about self > sufficiency, and it can be a killer in the winter time.
I think that might be the old version. The usual modern drill is deciding to leave a place with neighbors and moving into a rural area. Then immediately deciding that everyone else should pay to have the five mile dirt road you live on with three houses on it paved and for everyone else to pay to have the water, sewers and cable TV/Internet extended to your property.
> No one, any distance around. for some people. Had a neighbor die on his > doorstep during a blizzard. > I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival. Any > you are young, makes a difference. > Glad you are enjoying your life.
George wrote: > Napoleon wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:07:25 -0400, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
>>> My city's public transportion sucks. Why? Because we're basically >>> a smaller version of Detroit. So unless you've walked a mile in my >>> shoes, go suck an egg.
>> You don't live in Syracuse, do you? The public transportation here >> sucks the big shitola. I believe they only got bus service to the >> airport a few years ago. Unbelievable. America has only gone >> backwards since the adoption of the "automobile" as our saviour. In >> the 20's Syracuse had a network of electric trolleys that went >> everywhere and were safe, silent and affordable. Syracuse also had a >> good train system that actually went all the way out to resorts in >> the adirondacks and Sylvan Beach on Oneida Lake (Syracuse also had >> coal burning trains that ran right through downtown's streets, which >> wasn't great, but it was public transportation). Then the car came >> and the trolley system was trashed, the train schedules were cut >> back to nothing and the dreaded buses with their shitty schedules >> taking forever to get anywhere and going through the slum areas took >> hold. Improvement! Thank god for the automobile! I was in Melbourne a few >> weeks ago and using their trolley system, I thought "even America's >> smallest cities used to have these." What a shame America has trashed >> what worked in the past, and continues to work in other countries. >> It's sad.
> Very similar here in PA. I have a DVD made from a tape that was > produced from old color film that a local guy shot in the late > 1940s. There were literally electric trolleys everywhere around here plus an > electrified rapid transit interurban railway that ran 20 minute > headways 24x7. If you weren't around then you would never realize the > elaborate transit infrastructure we had unless you saw a film like > this. > Its very similar in Japan. You can go practically anywhere there > efficiently on rail.
> My understanding is that GM and Firestone are what really helped it > all disappear in the US. They went from town to town and found the > right politicians to hand envelopes to. This would help them decide > that GM buses with Firestone tires were really the way to go.
It happened right thruout the entire first world, mostly without any bribes.
There are only a tiny handful of citys that still have them now, including in the US.
Scott in SoCal wrote: > Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> > said:
>> Scott in SoCal wrote: >>> Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>>>> Kayak44 wrote: >>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but >>>>> doesn't want to hear.
>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as >>>>> bad as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. >>>>> Excuses are just that, excuses.
>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about >>>>> it. >>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would >>>> have to go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would >>>> have to take - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit >>>> just to feel half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to >>>> admit it or not. Public transportation is not an option for >>>> everyone, no matter how you slice it.
>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
>> It is generally dictated by income. > Even then you still have choices.
Yes, but not necessarily any with viable public transport, particularly if you decide to own and not rent.
>>> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it, >> In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two >> blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What >> the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public >> transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized. > Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than > automobiles are.
Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis. > A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL > subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and account > for ALL of them.
Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when the subsidy is so small that it becomes irrelevant.
> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding > that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys.
Last time on misc.consumers, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> said:
>Heh. He thinks I couldn't have PLONKed him because I use GoogleGroups? Yeah, >that would be true if I didn't use AIOE to READ all newsgroups 99% of the >time.
SUUUUURE you do. Of course you didn't just sign up for aioe yesterday because you got OWNED, right? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be it.
>>>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops >>>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe >>>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has >>>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live >>>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live >>>>> someplace else. >>>> =True, and I'm in the progress. Believe me , I didn't stick here for >>>> my >>>> health, >>>> I had family obligation, that recently ,are no more. Some people are >>>> where >>>> they >>>> are for many reasons. >>>> Are you a Preacher? Just asking >>> Nope! Not even close.
>>>> Bet you live in some all around the year warm climate, also. >>> I do now, but I grew up in Chicago. I actually used transit more when >>> I lived there than I do now, primarily because the transit system >>> there is so much better.
>>>> You are just a tad better than the rest of the herd, aren't you. >>> Not better, just different priorities. Somehow I managed to purchase a >>> house that is within walking distance of four grocery stores, a dozen >>> restaurants, a medical and dental office building, dry cleaners, hair >>> salons, two bus lines, and a Metrolink commuter rail station.
>>> The herd typically places things like square footage and age of the >>> house at a higher priority than the things I listed. If those had been >>> my priorities, I'd have bought a McMansion out in BFE and been stuck >>> driving on the 91 freeway for 2 hours every day. OTOH, when gasoline >>> was up over $4/gallon, not being a slave to my car came in mighty >>> handy. :)
>>>> Yea, try in with snow up your backside, House is >>>> for sale come see how long you last in the climate. You would be >>>> graveling, >>>> come Spring. >>> I spent the first 30 years or so of my life in a cold climate, so I'd >>> last a lot longer than you think.
>> Evidently you lived within the city, rural living is all about self >> sufficiency, and it can be a killer in the winter time.
> I think that might be the old version. The usual modern drill is deciding > to leave a place with neighbors and moving into a rural area. Then > immediately deciding that everyone else should pay to have the five mile > dirt road you live on with three houses on it paved and for everyone else > to pay to have the water, sewers and cable TV/Internet extended to your > property.
Well, you aren't an old timer. They are dying out. this road was built by the people living on it some 20 years ago. Yes, we had mud up to the axl. People would leave their cars on the corner and walk in, kids did also. For the modern conviences, I have a dial up, phone wires, they have been here for sometime by the looks of the electric poles, , as woodpeckers are making homes in them, now. Our standard of living is very basic. Now, when the out of staters fled Mass to come to a less regulated part of the country, they are the ones that bitched an moaned about the roads, about the smell of manure being spread, bitch, bitch, bitch , moan, and whin, until they got enough of the whiners accumulated to be voted in or on the boards, or invented boards to control the rest of us and to get in our pockets, oh yea, you know, like those pansie liberals that are now in office, " Know what I'm talking about, Willis" These "out of staters" brought their sniffling ways up here with them, and put it all on us that were minding our own damn business. ==== Liberal infect every place they go and we are left with the grief, and the Liberals still aren't happy, can you believe it?-------------------So, people like me have to find a place with less of them, becoming more and more difficult, they seem to be every place, still looking at one of those islands off of Maine's coast. -----Now, that I'm on fire, I got enough energy manufactured to get more work done around here! Thanks
>> No one, any distance around. for some people. Had a neighbor die on his >> doorstep during a blizzard. >> I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival. >> Any ss >> you are young, makes a difference. >> Glad you are enjoying your life.
>>>> Every time this subject comes up there's always some whiner who pops >>>> up with this "I can't use public transit" BS. It's as if you believe >>>> that you are a tree, and you are forced to grow wherever Chance has >>>> placed your seed. You live where you live because you CHOSE to live >>>> there; if properly motivated, you could just as easily CHOOSE to live >>>> someplace else. >>> =True, and I'm in the progress. Believe me , I didn't stick here for my >>> health, >>> I had family obligation, that recently ,are no more. Some people are where >>> they >>> are for many reasons. >>> Are you a Preacher? Just asking >> Nope! Not even close.
>>> Bet you live in some all around the year warm climate, also. >> I do now, but I grew up in Chicago. I actually used transit more when >> I lived there than I do now, primarily because the transit system >> there is so much better.
>>> You are just a tad better than the rest of the herd, aren't you. >> Not better, just different priorities. Somehow I managed to purchase a >> house that is within walking distance of four grocery stores, a dozen >> restaurants, a medical and dental office building, dry cleaners, hair >> salons, two bus lines, and a Metrolink commuter rail station.
>> The herd typically places things like square footage and age of the >> house at a higher priority than the things I listed. If those had been >> my priorities, I'd have bought a McMansion out in BFE and been stuck >> driving on the 91 freeway for 2 hours every day. OTOH, when gasoline >> was up over $4/gallon, not being a slave to my car came in mighty >> handy. :)
>>> Yea, try in with snow up your backside, House is >>> for sale come see how long you last in the climate. You would be >>> graveling, >>> come Spring. >> I spent the first 30 years or so of my life in a cold climate, so I'd >> last a lot longer than you think.
> Evidently you lived within the city, rural living is all about self > sufficiency, and it can be a killer in the winter time. > No one, any distance around. for some people. Had a neighbor die on his > doorstep during a blizzard.
I think that if I lived out like that, I'd read "To Build a Fire" by Jack London a few times as winter approached. It's not *hard*, it's just a constant state of awareness and being methodical in preparation.
One of my wife's online buddies lives by herself in the wilds of Montana. Tough people.
> I think you must be a city dweller, totally insufficient for survival. Any > you are young, makes a difference. > Glad you are enjoying your life.
> Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> > said:
>>Scott in SoCal wrote: >>> Last time on misc.consumers, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> said:
>>>> Kayak44 wrote: >>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but >>>>> doesn't want to hear.
>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as bad as >>>>> anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. Excuses are >>>>> just that, excuses.
>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it. >>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would have >>>> to >>>> go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I would have to take >>>> - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry permit just to feel >>>> half-way safe. He is being smug, whether you want to admit it or not. >>>> Public transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how you >>>> slice it.
>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it.
>>It is generally dictated by income.
> Even then you still have choices.
>>> If >>> you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it,
>>In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two >>blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What >>the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public >>transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized.
> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized LESS than > automobiles are.
>>So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis.
> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL > subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and account > for ALL of them. With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding > that goes on this is basically an impossible task.
=you don't know what you pay for the roads up here in Maine, because the road funding is put into the general fund and the transportation fund is always broke. You know, something like the Federal Soc. Sec. Fund full of IOUs. If anyone ran a business the way these crooks run the governments, they would be in jail with Madoff. why they aren't , "that is the question"
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Scott in SoCal wrote >>> Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote >>>> Scott in SoCal wrote >>>>> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote >>>>>> Kayak44 wrote >>>>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true but doesn't want to hear. >>>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as >>>>>>> bad as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. >>>>>>> Excuses are just that, excuses. >>>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>>>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it. >>>>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I would >>>>>> have to go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the route I >>>>>> would have to take - no thanks. I would need a concealed carry >>>>>> permit just to feel half-way safe. He is being smug, whether >>>>>> you want to admit it or not. Public transportation is not an >>>>>> option for everyone, no matter how you slice it. >>>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it. >>>> It is generally dictated by income. >>> Even then you still have choices. >> Yes, but not necessarily any with viable public transport, >> particularly if you decide to own and not rent. >>>>> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it, >>>> In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two >>>> blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What >>>> the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public >>>> transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized. >>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because >>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. >> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available >> and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. > So you use them exclusively on private roads?
Corse not.
> If not, you are getting a subsidy.
Nope, the roads I do use them on are paid for by the taxes I pay.
> That is even without reckoning the cost of the > wars waged so that you can enjoy cheap fuel.
I pay for those wars out of the taxes I pay too.
>>>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis. >>> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL >>> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and >>> account for ALL of them. >> Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when the subsidy is so >> small that it becomes irrelevant. >>> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding >>> that goes on this is basically an impossible task. >> Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys. > I think you'll find that both of the subsidies I've mentioned exceed > the cost of the car
Yes, but I pay for that with the tax I pay, so no subsidy.
> - hardly "the smallest subsidys (sic)".
I JUST said the smallest subsidys dont need to be calculated.
And you (sic) cuts no mustard either, I choose to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Phil W Lee wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Scott in SoCal wrote >>>>> Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote >>>>>> Scott in SoCal wrote >>>>>>> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote >>>>>>>> Kayak44 wrote >>>>>>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true >>>>>>>>> but doesn't want to hear. >>>>>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are just as >>>>>>>>> bad as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but not impossible. >>>>>>>>> Excuses are just that, excuses. >>>>>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>>>>>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it. >>>>>>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I >>>>>>>> would have to go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the >>>>>>>> route I would have to take - no thanks. I would need a >>>>>>>> concealed carry permit just to feel half-way safe. He is >>>>>>>> being smug, whether you want to admit it or not. Public >>>>>>>> transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how >>>>>>>> you slice it. >>>>>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it. >>>>>> It is generally dictated by income. >>>>> Even then you still have choices. >>>> Yes, but not necessarily any with viable public transport, >>>> particularly if you decide to own and not rent. >>>>>>> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it, >>>>>> In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two >>>>>> blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What >>>>>> the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public >>>>>> transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized. >>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because >>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. >>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available >>>> and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>> So you use them exclusively on private roads? >> Corse not. >>> If not, you are getting a subsidy. >> Nope, the roads I do use them on are paid for by the taxes I pay. > And by the taxes of those who do not use them.
FAR less of the taxes of those who do not use them.
>>> That is even without reckoning the cost of the >>> wars waged so that you can enjoy cheap fuel. >> I pay for those wars out of the taxes I pay too. > You must pay a lot of tax, if you fund all that by yourself.
Never said a word about by myself.
Since the absolute vast bulk of those who pay tax do use automobiles, it follows that those pay the vast bulk of the taxes that pay for those wars.
In fact is mostly the less well paid dregs that use public transport, and so they pay much less of the taxes that do pay for those wars.
>>>>>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis. >>>>> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL >>>>> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and >>>>> account for ALL of them. >>>> Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when the subsidy is so >>>> small that it becomes irrelevant. >>>>> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding >>>>> that goes on this is basically an impossible task. >>>> Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys. >>> I think you'll find that both of the subsidies I've mentioned exceed >>> the cost of the car >> Yes, but I pay for that with the tax I pay, so no subsidy. > You clearly have little idea of how that works
Its clearly you that doesnt have a clue how that works.
> - would you get a rebate if you didn't use those roads?
It aint the rebates that matter.
>>> - hardly "the smallest subsidys (sic)". >> I JUST said the smallest subsidys dont need to be calculated. >> And your (sic) cuts no mustard either, I choose >> to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it. > You choose to understand it so poorly that you can't even spell it.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Last time on misc.consumers, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> said:
>>Heh. He thinks I couldn't have PLONKed him because I use GoogleGroups? >>Yeah, >>that would be true if I didn't use AIOE to READ all newsgroups 99% of the >>time.
> SUUUUURE you do. Of course you didn't just sign up for aioe yesterday > because you got OWNED, right? Oh no, that couldn't possibly be it.
Umm, no. It's not possible to read newsgroups without a filter for Rod Speed and others of his ilk. Like you.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >> Phil W Lee wrote >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>> Phil W Lee wrote >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote >>>>>> Scott in SoCal wrote >>>>>>> Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.net> wrote >>>>>>>> Scott in SoCal wrote >>>>>>>>> Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote >>>>>>>>>> Kayak44 wrote >>>>>>>>>>> He's not smug, he's just saying what everyone knows is true >>>>>>>>>>> but doesn't want to hear. >>>>>>>>>>> I went for a few years with no car and winters here are >>>>>>>>>>> just as bad as anywhere else. Sure, it was difficult but >>>>>>>>>>> not impossible. >>>>>>>>>>> Excuses are just that, excuses. >>>>>>>>>>> I own a small SUV now because I'm selfish, don't like to be >>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced and can afford it, but at least I'm honest about it. >>>>>>>>>> You are cordially invited to my neck of the woods, where I >>>>>>>>>> would have to go a few miles just to catch a bus. And the >>>>>>>>>> route I would have to take - no thanks. I would need a >>>>>>>>>> concealed carry permit just to feel half-way safe. He is >>>>>>>>>> being smug, whether you want to admit it or not. Public >>>>>>>>>> transportation is not an option for everyone, no matter how >>>>>>>>>> you slice it. >>>>>>>>> Where you live is a lifestyle choice, no matter how you slice it. >>>>>>>> It is generally dictated by income. >>>>>>> Even then you still have choices. >>>>>> Yes, but not necessarily any with viable public transport, >>>>>> particularly if you decide to own and not rent. >>>>>>>>> If you chose to make access to transit a priority you could do it, >>>>>>>> In New York city*, it is well known that identical quarters two >>>>>>>> blocks closer to public transport will be higher in price. What >>>>>>>> the automobile does is allow people to substitute for public >>>>>>>> transport, which is expensive because it's subsidized. >>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because >>>>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are. >>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available >>>>>> and the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone. >>>>> So you use them exclusively on private roads? >>>> Corse not. >>>>> If not, you are getting a subsidy. >>>> Nope, the roads I do use them on are paid for by the taxes I pay. >>> And by the taxes of those who do not use them. >> FAR less of the taxes of those who do not use them. >>>>> That is even without reckoning the cost of the >>>>> wars waged so that you can enjoy cheap fuel. >>>> I pay for those wars out of the taxes I pay too. >>> You must pay a lot of tax, if you fund all that by yourself. >> Never said a word about by myself. >> Since the absolute vast bulk of those who pay tax do use automobiles, >> it follows that those pay the vast bulk of the taxes that pay for those wars. >> In fact is mostly the less well paid dregs that use public transport, >> and so they pay much less of the taxes that do pay for those wars. > Ah yes, less well paid = dregs.
Never said that, you silly little pathological liar.
> Such a rational argument.
Your lies in spades.
> Particularly in a country where just being unlucky > enough to be ill can turn you into a dreg.
In fact the absolute vast bulk of that 'illness' is self inflicted and nothing whatever to do with luck.
> Do you have any other prejudices you'd like to air, or do > you think you've made enough of a prat of yourself already?
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>>>>> So what's really required is a wee bit of economic analysis. >>>>>>> A true analysis is impossible until you can either remove ALL >>>>>>> subsidies on ALL modes of transport, or at least identify and >>>>>>> account for ALL of them. >>>>>> Thats just plain wrong too, most obviously when >>>>>> the subsidy is so small that it becomes irrelevant. >>>>>>> With the convoluted system of taxes and fund raiding >>>>>>> that goes on this is basically an impossible task. >>>>>> Yes, but isnt actually necessary with the smallest subsidys. >>>>> I think you'll find that both of the subsidies I've mentioned >>>>> exceed the cost of the car >>>> Yes, but I pay for that with the tax I pay, so no subsidy. >>> You clearly have little idea of how that works >> Its clearly you that doesnt have a clue how that works. > Go on then, tell us all about hypothecation.
Just how many of you are there between those ears, wanker ?
> Do you think people should be stopped from driving > if their tax contribution falls below any particular level?
Nope.
>>> - would you get a rebate if you didn't use those roads? >> It aint the rebates that matter. >>>>> - hardly "the smallest subsidys (sic)". >>>> I JUST said the smallest subsidys dont need to be calculated. >>>> And your (sic) cuts no mustard either, I choose >>>> to spell that way. You get to like that or lump it. >>> You choose to understand it so poorly that you can't even spell it. >> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag. > Evidently.
Pathetic.
> Look forward to becoming a dreg when your employer discovers your tenuous grasp on reality.
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:51:31 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote: > Look forward to becoming a dreg when your employer discovers your > tenuous grasp on reality.
Rod-bot doesn't have an employer. His 24x7 posts indicate that. Plus his in depth knowledge of welfare in this country indicates that he is already a recipient.
> Phil W Lee wrote >> Look forward to becoming a dreg when your >> employer discovers your tenuous grasp on reality. > Rod-bot doesn't have an employer. His 24x7 posts indicate that. > Plus his in depth knowledge of welfare in this country indicates > that he is already a recipient.
Never ever accepted even a cent of welfare ever, thanks, fool.
>> = Scott in SoCal > = Rod Speed >> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >> LESS than automobiles are. > Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest > cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and > the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
=v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the true cost of driving.
=v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
=v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose. <_Jym_>
Jym Dyer wrote: >>> = Scott in SoCal >> = Rod Speed
>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized >>> LESS than automobiles are. >> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest >> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and >> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array > of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the > true cost of driving.
> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one > or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is > going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants > distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much > further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars > (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too, > is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land > area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of > maintaining it all.
> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing > 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved, > and guess what? You lose. > <_Jym_>
Add it up again with door-to-door service, and 'anytime' availability. Not everyone lives in the imaginary 1920s-1960s urban utopia of 40 foot wide lot row houses with a bus stop on every other corner. Nor does everyone go to work or come home the same time, or work the hours the bus system is running. To provide anything near the level of service a private vehicle offers, you would need a whole lot more buses and drivers. And most of them would still be running near-empty most of the time, at a higher cost per passenger mile than a private car. Buses are only efficient if they are at least partially full.
Hey, I <like> public transit. In college, I used it almost every day. But in a college town, most of the users live in a concentrated area, and the places they need to go are in a concentrated area. Out in the real world, the only areas that get near that user/destination density are the old urban centers. Which happen to be the only areas where mass transit works. That is why the city here collapsed their bus routes and schedules- they realized that the buses to the outer regions were running nearly empty most of the time. Same for the off-hour buses, even in town. It would be cheaper to give cab fare coupons to the folks that can't drive for whatever reason. They didn't do that, of course, so there were some people truly between a rock and a hard place. One guy wanted to take up the slack with a jitney bus service that regular-use non-drivers could subscribe to, but the cab companies leaned on the city, and it never happened.
|
