what happened to flight 77?

In article . net,
Gerald Sylvester wrote:

I personally think
they should add a 50 cent tax per gallon of gasoline. Then the moms
driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
and responsible sized vehicle.

"reasonable and responsible" according to whose definition?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"Outrageous" is relative. US prices are still dirt cheap compared to what
Europeans pay.

Hear hear.

At Rotterdam fuel costs $2.18 per LITER that's $8.5/USGal.

Have a look at: (NB. Prices are per LITER on this list)
http://www.alexfrance.eurobell.co.uk/eurofuel.htm

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

Then the moms
driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
and responsible sized vehicle.

No, they won't. The prevailing attitude there was summed up by the lady interviewed
by National Geographic magazine a few months ago. She said she didn't mind the gas
mileage (or lack therof) her Hummer gets. She's comfortable knowing that "no matter
what I hit, I win."

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

On 2004-09-02 17:04, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

Then the moms
driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
and responsible sized vehicle.


No, they won't. The prevailing attitude there was summed up by the lady interviewed
by National Geographic magazine a few months ago. She said she didn't mind the gas
mileage (or lack therof) her Hummer gets. She's comfortable knowing that "no matter
what I hit, I win."

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

....until she runs into another Hummer owner of course.

Will she get an Abrahams tank next?

/Rolf

"Earl Grieda" wrote in message
.net...


If it was about oil, and I am not saying that it was, it would be about
the
oil companies making bigger profits, not lowering your price at the pump.


Good observation. This would infer the workings are mainly
behind-the-scenes and much safer politically.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Then the moms
driving their Ford Expeditions will think about getting a reasonable
and responsible sized vehicle.

No, they won't. The prevailing attitude there was summed up by the lady
interviewed
by National Geographic magazine a few months ago. She said she didn't mind
the gas
mileage (or lack therof) her Hummer gets. She's comfortable knowing that
"no matter
what I hit, I win."


Reminds me of the old joke about the Navy destroyer arguing with another
radio operator about changing course to avoid collision (pulling rank, etc.)
then having the other station announce they were a lighthouse, go ahead and
do as you wish.

Rolling over, losing control, hitting a stationary object are just as much
hazards, maybe even more so in a large, unwieldy vehicle. Plus, there is
little question that the danger to others is increased. What could be a
relatively minor collision can turn into serious injury or death, and the
decreased visibility (especially in parking lots in supermarkets and around
schools) increases risk to children.

A month ago I had a lady in a Ford Expedition rear end me in my Honda
Accord. On a straight section of country highway. She said she was
distracted and didn't see me and came close to totalling my car ($4500
damage). The impact was strong, moving everything from the front of the car
to the back seat and moving my seat to the rearmost position. Very
fortunately the headrest was in the proper position and I was not injured.
Had there been no headrest I would not be posting this today, the doctor I
saw said I would likely have been killed or paralyzed. There was almost no
damage to the SUV. Had it been a vehicle closer to the Accord's size the
impact would have been more evenly distributed, but very likely would not
have even occurred as the driver's view of me would have been much clearer.

I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am also
concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
(somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

"Dave" wrote in message
...


onsitewelding wrote:


I will say this though.......My opinion of Bush is he is a sneaky S.O.B
that
used the 9/11 attacks for his campain into Iraq. "Saddam has WOMD so we
must
go in and remove the axis of evil" soo much Bunk!
It should have read-"I George W Bush so solomly swear to use the 9/11
terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq so that my rich American
friends and I can control all the middle east oil reserves"

This is just my opinion however.


What really peeves me is that ..If it *were* all about the oil, why
are gas prices outrageous??

Because Bush and his cronies ****ed it up and misjudged the post invasion
chaos.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am also
concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
(somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

I agree, but I don't have a solution to the problem. I've heard people mention that
many of these vehicles are classed as "trucks" and are thus exempt from certain
environmental restrictions. If so, I think it reasonable to remove the exemption, at
least for vehicles that are clearly equiped to carry passengers rather than cargo,
but that would probably only establish a "cottage industry" of adding seats to cargo
vehicles.

Back in the '70s, the gas crunches produced demand for efficient cars, but the
American concentration on safety these days seems to have prempted everything else.
As long as people think their kids will be safer in an Explorer than a Focus, they'll
buy the extra gas.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

On 31 Aug 2004 11:53:35 GMT, ospam (Rosspilot)
wrote:

I'd really like to hear pilot comments about this.

The purest hokum. The maker of the film from "paranoids are us" is
skipping over the passenger manifest which logged all the people who
boarded the airliner and who died upon impact of that airliner with
the Pentagon. He, and I'm assuming it's a he, is also skipping over
the fact that four airliners were lost that day, not three airliners
and a commuter airplane, or three airliners and a missile. They are
all accounted for from each crash, there's no mistake.

Airliner crash fires are hot, especially airliners that are fat with
fuel. Hot fires burn things like aluminum, steel and people to dust.

Really Rosspilot, this is extreme troll material.

Corky Scott

In article , "Peter
Gottlieb" wrote:

I am very concerned about the average decrease in fuel efficiency and the
effects this has on the country's economics and environment, and I am
also
concerned about the increased danger these vehicles pose to others. Some
will argue (very strongly and insistently!) that they "have the right" to
own such a vehicle, or whatever vehicle they want, and that is true
(somewhat). However, unless somewhere in there is the concept of
"responsibility" then I think we got ourselves a major problem.

If you chose to drive an unsafe vehicle, then don't blame others.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.