On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>>SELL
>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>>
>>
>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.

Ah, yes.
The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
adhere to my ideas."

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>>SELL
>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>>
>>
>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.

Ah, yes.
The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
adhere to my ideas."

 

On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>>SELL
>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>>
>>
>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.

Ah, yes.
The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
adhere to my ideas."

 

In article <o1d8pv8jv6rfrdhdlkpno562ibok77emfa@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>>>SELL
>>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>>
>>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>>>
>>>
>>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
>
> Ah, yes.
> The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
> adhere to my ideas."

Don't you find it odd that Dr. Parker drives a MB, yet favors CAFE?
What is MB's CAFE rating these days anyway?

 

In article <o1d8pv8jv6rfrdhdlkpno562ibok77emfa@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>>>SELL
>>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>>
>>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>>>
>>>
>>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
>
> Ah, yes.
> The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
> adhere to my ideas."

Don't you find it odd that Dr. Parker drives a MB, yet favors CAFE?
What is MB's CAFE rating these days anyway?

 

In article <o1d8pv8jv6rfrdhdlkpno562ibok77emfa@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <bmuf8j02h0d@enews4.newsguy.com>,
>> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>>>SELL
>>>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>>>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>>
>>>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>>>
>>>
>>Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
>
> Ah, yes.
> The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
> adhere to my ideas."

Don't you find it odd that Dr. Parker drives a MB, yet favors CAFE?
What is MB's CAFE rating these days anyway?

 

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Milne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >>
> >> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> >> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> >> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> >> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> >> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> >> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> >> punished."
> >>
> >
> >Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> >tougher licensing requirements.
> >
> >I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
> >SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
> >don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
> >turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
> >in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
> >enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
> >wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
> >an on.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
> SUVs.

Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.

Lisa

 

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Milne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >>
> >> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> >> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> >> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> >> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> >> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> >> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> >> punished."
> >>
> >
> >Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> >tougher licensing requirements.
> >
> >I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
> >SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
> >don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
> >turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
> >in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
> >enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
> >wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
> >an on.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
> SUVs.

Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.

Lisa

 

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Bill Putney wrote:
> >>
> >> Dave Milne wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
> >>
> >> Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
> >> that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
> >> driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
> >> children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
> >> continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
> >> killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
> >> punished."
> >>
> >
> >Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> >tougher licensing requirements.
> >
> >I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
> >SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
> >don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
> >turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
> >in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
> >enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
> >wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
> >an on.
> >
> >Lisa
>
> But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
> SUVs.

Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.

Lisa

 

Lisa Horton wrote:

> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa

Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
Prove me wrong.

Ed