Oil prices got you down?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
Its good having you back, Earle :-)
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124028636.19cf676c4b2f066bceb2f4547f60311a@t eranews...
> Dave,
>
> The United States does not conquer other lands for the purposes of
> territorial expansion or economic exploitation. We have reached the
limits
> of our influence on this planet, and any military or economic action we
may
> take is solely for the purposes of self-defense. Once other countries
catch
> up with us, we will be more than happy to take an equal role with them.
> Honest. You can trust us, because of our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:lKHLe.88730$G8.30203@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
> > greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the
> > destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time
> or
> > accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
> yielded
> > to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and
> > obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we
> > should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." [Gibbon,
> > Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury
> > (London, 1909), pp. 173-174.]
> >
> > In other words, the wolf at the top of the hill is not as keen as the
wolf
> > at the bottom. Do you think America will be the top dog in another 500
> years
> > ? Every dog/wolf has their day !
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:7379e$42ff4460$453deea8$10145@FUSE.NET...
> > > >>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization
is
> > > > really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> > > > certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> > > > whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> > > > treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
> > >
> > > They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat
and
> > > lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the
> > powerhouse
> > > that it was under Julius Caesar.
> >
> >
>
>
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124028636.19cf676c4b2f066bceb2f4547f60311a@t eranews...
> Dave,
>
> The United States does not conquer other lands for the purposes of
> territorial expansion or economic exploitation. We have reached the
limits
> of our influence on this planet, and any military or economic action we
may
> take is solely for the purposes of self-defense. Once other countries
catch
> up with us, we will be more than happy to take an equal role with them.
> Honest. You can trust us, because of our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:lKHLe.88730$G8.30203@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
> > greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the
> > destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time
> or
> > accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
> yielded
> > to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and
> > obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we
> > should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." [Gibbon,
> > Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury
> > (London, 1909), pp. 173-174.]
> >
> > In other words, the wolf at the top of the hill is not as keen as the
wolf
> > at the bottom. Do you think America will be the top dog in another 500
> years
> > ? Every dog/wolf has their day !
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:7379e$42ff4460$453deea8$10145@FUSE.NET...
> > > >>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization
is
> > > > really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> > > > certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> > > > whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> > > > treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
> > >
> > > They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat
and
> > > lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the
> > powerhouse
> > > that it was under Julius Caesar.
> >
> >
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
Its good having you back, Earle :-)
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124028636.19cf676c4b2f066bceb2f4547f60311a@t eranews...
> Dave,
>
> The United States does not conquer other lands for the purposes of
> territorial expansion or economic exploitation. We have reached the
limits
> of our influence on this planet, and any military or economic action we
may
> take is solely for the purposes of self-defense. Once other countries
catch
> up with us, we will be more than happy to take an equal role with them.
> Honest. You can trust us, because of our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:lKHLe.88730$G8.30203@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
> > greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the
> > destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time
> or
> > accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
> yielded
> > to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and
> > obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we
> > should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." [Gibbon,
> > Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury
> > (London, 1909), pp. 173-174.]
> >
> > In other words, the wolf at the top of the hill is not as keen as the
wolf
> > at the bottom. Do you think America will be the top dog in another 500
> years
> > ? Every dog/wolf has their day !
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:7379e$42ff4460$453deea8$10145@FUSE.NET...
> > > >>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization
is
> > > > really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> > > > certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> > > > whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> > > > treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
> > >
> > > They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat
and
> > > lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the
> > powerhouse
> > > that it was under Julius Caesar.
> >
> >
>
>
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124028636.19cf676c4b2f066bceb2f4547f60311a@t eranews...
> Dave,
>
> The United States does not conquer other lands for the purposes of
> territorial expansion or economic exploitation. We have reached the
limits
> of our influence on this planet, and any military or economic action we
may
> take is solely for the purposes of self-defense. Once other countries
catch
> up with us, we will be more than happy to take an equal role with them.
> Honest. You can trust us, because of our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:lKHLe.88730$G8.30203@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
> > greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the
> > destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time
> or
> > accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
> yielded
> > to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and
> > obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we
> > should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." [Gibbon,
> > Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury
> > (London, 1909), pp. 173-174.]
> >
> > In other words, the wolf at the top of the hill is not as keen as the
wolf
> > at the bottom. Do you think America will be the top dog in another 500
> years
> > ? Every dog/wolf has their day !
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:7379e$42ff4460$453deea8$10145@FUSE.NET...
> > > >>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization
is
> > > > really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> > > > certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> > > > whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> > > > treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
> > >
> > > They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat
and
> > > lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the
> > powerhouse
> > > that it was under Julius Caesar.
> >
> >
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
Its good having you back, Earle :-)
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124028636.19cf676c4b2f066bceb2f4547f60311a@t eranews...
> Dave,
>
> The United States does not conquer other lands for the purposes of
> territorial expansion or economic exploitation. We have reached the
limits
> of our influence on this planet, and any military or economic action we
may
> take is solely for the purposes of self-defense. Once other countries
catch
> up with us, we will be more than happy to take an equal role with them.
> Honest. You can trust us, because of our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:lKHLe.88730$G8.30203@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
> > greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the
> > destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time
> or
> > accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
> yielded
> > to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and
> > obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we
> > should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." [Gibbon,
> > Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury
> > (London, 1909), pp. 173-174.]
> >
> > In other words, the wolf at the top of the hill is not as keen as the
wolf
> > at the bottom. Do you think America will be the top dog in another 500
> years
> > ? Every dog/wolf has their day !
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:7379e$42ff4460$453deea8$10145@FUSE.NET...
> > > >>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization
is
> > > > really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> > > > certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> > > > whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> > > > treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
> > >
> > > They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat
and
> > > lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the
> > powerhouse
> > > that it was under Julius Caesar.
> >
> >
>
>
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"Earle Horton" <nurse--NOSPAM--busters@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124028636.19cf676c4b2f066bceb2f4547f60311a@t eranews...
> Dave,
>
> The United States does not conquer other lands for the purposes of
> territorial expansion or economic exploitation. We have reached the
limits
> of our influence on this planet, and any military or economic action we
may
> take is solely for the purposes of self-defense. Once other countries
catch
> up with us, we will be more than happy to take an equal role with them.
> Honest. You can trust us, because of our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage.
>
> Earle
>
> "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
> news:lKHLe.88730$G8.30203@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> > "The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate
> > greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the cause of the
> > destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time
> or
> > accident and removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric
> yielded
> > to the pressure of its own weight. The story of the ruin is simple and
> > obvious: and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed we
> > should rather be surprised that it has subsisted for so long." [Gibbon,
> > Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., vol. 4, ed. by J. B. Bury
> > (London, 1909), pp. 173-174.]
> >
> > In other words, the wolf at the top of the hill is not as keen as the
wolf
> > at the bottom. Do you think America will be the top dog in another 500
> years
> > ? Every dog/wolf has their day !
> >
> > Dave Milne, Scotland
> > '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
> >
> > "Ruel Smith" <NoWay@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:7379e$42ff4460$453deea8$10145@FUSE.NET...
> > > >>From what I history I have read, the decline of many a civilization
is
> > > > really caused by the destruction of the middle class. That was
> > > > certainly true in the decline of the Roman Empire. They kicked a
> > > > whole lot of butt in the known world and it eventually drained their
> > > > treasury dry trying to defend their over stressed borders..
> > >
> > > They also developed a welfare system, started having orgies, got fat
and
> > > lazy... By the time Rome fell, it wasn't even close to being the
> > powerhouse
> > > that it was under Julius Caesar.
> >
> >
>
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
my math is not but my speedo might be
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
my math is not but my speedo might be
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
my math is not but my speedo might be
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
my math is not but my speedo might be
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Norman wrote:
> "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > hmmm that isn't right
> > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes 3
> hours on the dot to get
> > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> speeds
> >
> > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> >
> > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred miles
> > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty seven
> > > minutes.
> > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > >
> > > tim bur wrote:
> > > >
> > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70 only
> results in about a 10
> > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> thats given to each new
> > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks on
> monday and use up 1/4
> > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they are
> going to save a few
> > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> everyday and hear about it
> > > > everyday
>
> --------------------------------------------
> 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
>
> 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
>
> Your math is flawed.
>
> Norman
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
You have a wierd speedo then. On the assumption that the 200 miles and the
time is correct,
when you are doing 66.7mph it reads 70mph ( +5% fair enough) but when you
are doing 63mph it reads 55mph (-13%).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FF595C.DD861FD@cac.net...
> my math is not but my speedo might be
>
> Norman wrote:
>
> > "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> > news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > > hmmm that isn't right
> > > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes
3
> > hours on the dot to get
> > > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> > speeds
> > >
> > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred
miles
> > > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty
seven
> > > > minutes.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > tim bur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70
only
> > results in about a 10
> > > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> > thats given to each new
> > > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks
on
> > monday and use up 1/4
> > > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they
are
> > going to save a few
> > > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> > everyday and hear about it
> > > > > everyday
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> > 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
> >
> > 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
> >
> > Your math is flawed.
> >
> > Norman
>
time is correct,
when you are doing 66.7mph it reads 70mph ( +5% fair enough) but when you
are doing 63mph it reads 55mph (-13%).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FF595C.DD861FD@cac.net...
> my math is not but my speedo might be
>
> Norman wrote:
>
> > "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> > news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > > hmmm that isn't right
> > > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes
3
> > hours on the dot to get
> > > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> > speeds
> > >
> > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred
miles
> > > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty
seven
> > > > minutes.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > tim bur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70
only
> > results in about a 10
> > > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> > thats given to each new
> > > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks
on
> > monday and use up 1/4
> > > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they
are
> > going to save a few
> > > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> > everyday and hear about it
> > > > > everyday
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> > 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
> >
> > 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
> >
> > Your math is flawed.
> >
> > Norman
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
You have a wierd speedo then. On the assumption that the 200 miles and the
time is correct,
when you are doing 66.7mph it reads 70mph ( +5% fair enough) but when you
are doing 63mph it reads 55mph (-13%).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FF595C.DD861FD@cac.net...
> my math is not but my speedo might be
>
> Norman wrote:
>
> > "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> > news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > > hmmm that isn't right
> > > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes
3
> > hours on the dot to get
> > > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> > speeds
> > >
> > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred
miles
> > > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty
seven
> > > > minutes.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > tim bur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70
only
> > results in about a 10
> > > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> > thats given to each new
> > > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks
on
> > monday and use up 1/4
> > > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they
are
> > going to save a few
> > > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> > everyday and hear about it
> > > > > everyday
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> > 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
> >
> > 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
> >
> > Your math is flawed.
> >
> > Norman
>
time is correct,
when you are doing 66.7mph it reads 70mph ( +5% fair enough) but when you
are doing 63mph it reads 55mph (-13%).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FF595C.DD861FD@cac.net...
> my math is not but my speedo might be
>
> Norman wrote:
>
> > "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> > news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > > hmmm that isn't right
> > > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes
3
> > hours on the dot to get
> > > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> > speeds
> > >
> > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred
miles
> > > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty
seven
> > > > minutes.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > tim bur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70
only
> > results in about a 10
> > > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> > thats given to each new
> > > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks
on
> > monday and use up 1/4
> > > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they
are
> > going to save a few
> > > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> > everyday and hear about it
> > > > > everyday
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> > 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
> >
> > 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
> >
> > Your math is flawed.
> >
> > Norman
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Oil prices got you down?
You have a wierd speedo then. On the assumption that the 200 miles and the
time is correct,
when you are doing 66.7mph it reads 70mph ( +5% fair enough) but when you
are doing 63mph it reads 55mph (-13%).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FF595C.DD861FD@cac.net...
> my math is not but my speedo might be
>
> Norman wrote:
>
> > "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> > news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > > hmmm that isn't right
> > > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes
3
> > hours on the dot to get
> > > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> > speeds
> > >
> > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred
miles
> > > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty
seven
> > > > minutes.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > tim bur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70
only
> > results in about a 10
> > > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> > thats given to each new
> > > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks
on
> > monday and use up 1/4
> > > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they
are
> > going to save a few
> > > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> > everyday and hear about it
> > > > > everyday
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> > 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
> >
> > 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
> >
> > Your math is flawed.
> >
> > Norman
>
time is correct,
when you are doing 66.7mph it reads 70mph ( +5% fair enough) but when you
are doing 63mph it reads 55mph (-13%).
Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ
"tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:42FF595C.DD861FD@cac.net...
> my math is not but my speedo might be
>
> Norman wrote:
>
> > "tim bur" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> > news:42FE7118.1577C92F@cac.net...
> > > hmmm that isn't right
> > > i have a cabin exactly 200 miles from my house and at 70 mph it takes
3
> > hours on the dot to get
> > > there and at 55 it takes 3hours ten minutes i have driven it at both
> > speeds
> > >
> > > "L.W.(ßill) ------ III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > It take three hour thirty eight minutes to travel two hundred
miles
> > > > at 55 MPH, or two hours fifty one at 70 MPH, a difference of forty
seven
> > > > minutes.
> > > > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > > > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> > > >
> > > > tim bur wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > did you know driving at 55 verses going the same place driving 70
only
> > results in about a 10
> > > > > minute difference in a 200 mile trip there is a formula for this
> > thats given to each new
> > > > > driver going thru training in my area
> > > > > and i drive a 383 bigblock newport to work
> > > > > talk to people u know and you will find that people fill the tanks
on
> > monday and use up 1/4
> > > > > tank then drive right bac in and top off the tank thinking they
are
> > going to save a few
> > > > > pennies. because gas goes up everyday, so demand goes up i see it
> > everyday and hear about it
> > > > > everyday
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > 70mph * 3h = 210 miles
> > 55mph * 3h = 165 miles
> >
> > 10 additional minutes will only get you 7.3 more miles or 172.3 miles.
> >
> > Your math is flawed.
> >
> > Norman
>