Wow, C150 = Time Saver = Awesome 3 Days.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:18:47 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote in
::

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
If I compare a 4 hr drive I need a least about 3 hrs to do the same
journey by plane

Right. The additional overhead of flight not withstanding, if one
were to average 60 mph on the road for four hours, s/he'd have to make
160 mph to cover the same distance by air in 1-1/2 hours. Of course,
that analysis doesn't take into account commuter congestion on the
highway that may reduce the 60 mph average speed significantly.

Look at a map.

You're correct; I am not familiar with the route.

That said, there's certainly some truth to the post you quoted (as opposed
to your own).

You found _nothing_ truthful in my follow up article?

In any case, I think it's silly to take the original post to task for the
details.

What makes you think I took the poster to task? * That seems to more
accurately characterize your demeanor.

The poster is well-known for glossing over specific details
anyway, and the basic gist of his post is plenty to the point and accurate:
an airplane can be quite a convenience.

Pete



*

http://thesaurus.reference.com/searc...ke%20to%20task

2 entries found for take to task.
Main Entry: bawl out
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: severely reprimand
Synonyms: berate, castigate, chew out, dress down, have words, jump
down one's throat, punish, rake over the coals, reprimand, rip into,
scold, take to task, tell off, upbraid, yell at
Antonyms: praise
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: bring to book
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: call to account
Synonyms: call on the carpet, read the riot act, take to task,
tongue lash
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
You found _nothing_ truthful in my follow up article?

Sorry, you're correct. Your article was entirely truthful, as a matter of
fact. It was simply irrelevant, that's all.

The only untruthful element was the implication that your statements in some
way pertained to the flight in question. But I admit...that was only an
inferrred implication, and thus could have been entirely my own mistaken
interpretation of the post.

My apologies to you.

Pete