Debate : 10500


Off-Topic / Debate / 10500

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

You might have hit send before you finished. But I think I see where you were going so I will reply. (...) I think we have to define what a free market is and establish if, indeed your example is an example of a free market or not, before using it (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) Arrgh. I didn't delete my edits. (...) No, it wasn't "free" in the sense that it was a market in which entrepreneurs enjoyed the ability to pursue wealth without the debilitating presence of official corruption inherent to the system, but (...) (24 years ago, 16-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) James, How do you consider we achieve responsible management? I have some ideas. I'm curious to what others think. -chris (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson

(...) I suppose that the foremost priority in responsible wildlife management is to maintain a viable ecosystem in every environmental sample that is large enough to be essentially self-regulating. In my mind, the most pressing problem is urban (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The closest we have come to a free market in modern times was Hong Kong before it was handed back to China. (...) Wrong. You have the cheapest pump prices. In environmental terms, what is the cost of cheap oil? Effectively, cheap oil means we (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) SUVs! Hopefully, we are once again going to see evolution-in-action on them with high gas prices. :-) Bruce (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Watch it. I don't want another dull evolution debate to start again. After I typed by above text this morning, I found this interesting item by Paul Krugman. It is a little dated now, but it is still very relavant to this debate. Two key (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) quoted this passage instead. "True, economists generally believe that a system of free markets is a pretty efficient way to run an economy, as long as the prices are right--as long, in particular, as people pay the true social cost of their (...) (24 years ago, 17-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The market will *not* provide that... read the text I quoted. Consumers are too focussed on the low price of oil and the Big Macs. (...) As the text I quoted states, the market can not be trusted to look after the environment. Are you really (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The text you quoted *claims* it cannot. It is an assertion by that author, not a fact, that it is impossible to do so. That is not a view I share. The point of this subthread is to explore further, with concrete ideas and proposals, whether it (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Did I say it was as fact? (...) What a surprise. Can you justify this? (...) Not even if it cannot? (...) If you just want to say it can, we heard you already. But perhaps you can take the time to justify your view. But before you do, take a (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes. Let us review the difference between "states" and "asserts". Had you said "As the text I quoted asserts", you would be acknowledging that the author believed it to be true but not saying you felt it was fact yourself. However, you said (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) the (...) You had a 50:50 chance of getting it right - you failed. (...) Buy a dictionary : state - "to express, esp. clearly and carefully" "Critical thinkers" can justify their position. I asked you to TWICE in my last post. You failed each (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) While ownership of many things seems problematical, I think free market forces do work in environmental protections. I feel pretty confident that in a general sense, those nations with more market freedom have more concern for the environment. (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I can't find the exact cite right now, but an extension of Maslow's 'Hierarchy of needs' implies that environmental awareness(1) and the desire to protect it typically does not arrise in a society until that society reaches some level of (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I am not sure if I agree. If you are correct, look at which companies are wrecking the planet in the developing world... it is multinational companies from the developed world. The true cost of life in the west is very high: Oil 'time-bomb' in (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I know you are trying to stay on a narrowly focused topic here, but this is something I started to think about (again) as I was reading the end of the article and it may have bearing on this discussion. Can the market foster an ethical (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Good point. Also, *if* you owned all the plants, would you have the right to destroy them if you so wished? Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

Christopher, I found this text which goes over most of your points. It is rather long (I have not read it all yet). The key passage for me is this one: == ++ == "The libertarian's error resides in their proposal that privatization, which is clearly (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

There is some merit in the arguments your cite makes. I would ask this, however.... (and I snipped away the rest) (...) Overfishing is a worldwide problem, and a growing one. Whatever nation builds the largest fleet of boats wins the race to catch (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Welcome to the planet earth Larry. (...) I think you are cherry picking points from my post rather than jutifying your past "arguments" and claims. I shall humour you. The eu operates a quota system were fishing is concerned. There are strict (...) (24 years ago, 23-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What is that supposed to mean, exactly? I've been here all along and have been quite aware of this class of problem inasmuch as it points out a major failing in the concept of public ownership. (...) If they are breaking laws they are not (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Explain please. (...) Explain please. (...) Did I say that? No. Anyhow, what is your altermative. (...) By "enforced more", I mean the law should be enforced more. The freemarketeers should be trusted less. (...) I do not agree that is always (...) (24 years ago, 24-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Explain the tragedy of the commons? Your cite referenced it, I assumed you are familiar with it. (...) Explain the notion that a person engaged in stealing is not a free marketeer? Seems obvious to me. Maybe you're not as familiar with (...) (24 years ago, 26-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Not my point - but never mind. (...) A good start Larry, but I do doubt your notion free marketeers do not break laws. Further, what gives them the right to decide laws are "unjust"? (...) You should make yourself clear then Larry. Deliberate (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

I started twitching spastically 2/3 of the way through this. Scott, in ten years on the net, actively participating in conversations with all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs, from all over the world, I have never, ever, met anyone as (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

Although I have not read all of this I find this very unproductive. I am happy to be called "disruptive" if it means questioning those who make unsubstantiated remarks. I am sure those who make unsubstantiated remarks are happy that you are creating (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'm more amazed 2500 economists agreed on something. :) (...) I'm having trouble coming up with an example that shows how government regulation can protect something, at least one that is not mired with economics and other ideas. It's also (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) so sad... (...) what does the Libertarian think of the tradegy of the commons? Is it addressed? (...) Go Vegetarian! Just kidding ;) I'm pretty sure fishing regulations don't extend into nternational waters. There are some species that are (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes and no. The standard Libertarian answer applies well to the standard example... sheep overgrazing a commons can be remediated by having someone (or a group of someones) own the formerly common area and controlling how many sheep graze (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Alternatively the users of the common could determine what the maximum usage level is. Rather that competing against each other, they could invest in sheep together, via some sort of co-op, and take advantage of the common that way. However, I (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Absolutely. Coops are wonderful for lots of things. But then there isn't really a common, since the resource that might have otherwise been common is now owned by the coop. So you're basically solving the ToC issue the same way that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) No. Libertarians would sell usage to the highest bidder. (...) Perhaps we should all be a little unnatural? If you came from a different culture you may well think the opposite was true? I understand that some culture have little understanding (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) That's what I thought. (...) Aren't there corporate lobbies that want grazing (continuing with your example) prices that low? I'm not sure you can place all the blame on the goverment. (...) I'm still not sure why they should be owned. I've of (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Here is a start. It is not pretty, but it is a start: (URL) A (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) that I think about it I sure may have been wrong.) What's not pretty about that? The web page, the Ociania complex, or the idea of people building sovreignty on the seas? The only problem with that is that the Ociania project went belly up (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The complex. (...) In your opinion. I expect it would be full of the elderly nouveaux riche hoping to avoid paying tax. I expect there would be others their too hoping to exploit “freedoms” which are thankfully illegal in most other civilised (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think that if it were real, it would be technologically nifty...but I guess I agree that it's not really attractive. I would hope to see them do better if they actually got something off the ground...err, shore. (...) Well, yeah. (...) I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Yes. But as long as they could pay the "bill" I expect they will be welcome. The alternative, would mean imposing morals on others - and I know you are not a fan of that. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Uh! It is appropriate for organizations to lobby for the government to do the things that that organization thinks are good. It is inappropriate for the government to do bad things with our mutual resources. I think all the blame for anything (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm not sure I was. :-) Put it this way, if you have a system in which government influence can have more economic impact than competing in the market, and in which large companies can effectively change what it is that government influences (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I think you have just highlighted one of the biggest problems with modern society. By that, I mean the increasingly common belief that just because an action is within the written law it must be ~OK~. I think this is quite wrong. Loopholes do (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree with that. I am bound by my own inner morals, not the letter of the law, and feel some things that are legal are wrong, and some things that are illeage are not wrong. (...) But that begs the question of how much change is needed. (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) I understand your point. But does the average beef eating man not benift from the cheap grazing in the longer term? Does the US not impose tax on the owners of the cattle? Does your country not gain from sourcing beef from inside the USA (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, we are WAY better off producing food in our own country rather than contributing to foolish exploitation and environmentally unsound agricultural practices in other nations. Though we may benefit econimically, we are helping to destroy (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We don't know. The true cost of subsidized beef is unknown. The true cost of eating more meat and less vegetables (health costs, economic benefits of people living longer) is unknown. The true cost of overgrazing is unknown. There are too many (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

I found a few cool pieces of information that seemed relevant to grazing, beef cattle, etc. These facts also point out the environmental benefits of being vegetarian: - About 85% of topsoil erosion is directly attributable to raising animals for (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> Thanks for those (pretty scary) factoids! They argue that the true cost of meat is a LOT higher than we are actually paying because the producers are - using subsidised grazing - using subsidized feed - not paying for the pollution they (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think there are some points worth making here. (...) Well...I would say that it is due to poor agrarian practices. It is certainly true that most of the US is used to grow feed crops for chicken, pigs and cows, but that in and of itself, (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's only marginally helpful (although I thank you for the datapoint) because I don't feel eating meat (of animals bred to be stupid meat animals) morally wrong in and of itself, and I don't find doing things that are self destructive (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) I agree that eating meat is a natural thing and not morally wrong itself. However, I strongly feel that it is morally WRONG to eat the flesh of any animal that was raised in filth and suffering and killed inhumanely. Animals deserve a healthy (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree. My "stupid" comment was meant more to distinguish between cows and, say, dolphins, which I don't want to eat *because* they're too smart. (potentially... sentient!) Cows, Turkeys, Chickens, even Pigs I am fine with. (although I'm a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, stay away from pig meat. The Jews and Moslems had the right idea centuries ago. (...) Exactly, why be cruel? (...) God, Zeus, Budda, Shiva... fill in the blank. <snipped some stuff> (...) Well, I find that odd. Why is it morally wrong (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Indeed. I think our country needs to shift from the old paradigm of "a steak a day" kind of attitude. We overdose on meat! One of the most startling figures is the drastic jump in heart disease cases with the Japanese (who acquired a post war (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) there's an interesting project being run by PETA looking at these very issues ( (URL) ). I first looked at the site last year and found it pretty interesting. Probabaly the only thing PETA has ever done that I almost like. (...) Larry, I think (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Remember Libertopia isn't a "utopia" so isn't perfect. But ya, that's the idea. The thought is that strict liability with no dodging responsibility behind corporate shells would lead to a better assessment of costs. (...) Which parties are you (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Most of the time, people seem to associate me with the commies, socialists, and/or anarchists(1). Probably because of my involvement in 'punk rock scene'. I don't like to categorize myself with any of them- not because I don't believe in parts (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) No worms, I dig what you're saying here. I think America has an aversion to the word "communism" and is stuck on the Cold War model of an oppressive "big brother", totalitarian state. Let's pretend there was never a Stalin or Mao and address (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'll tell you something that would make it easier for me to move to a vegan diet. I'm in California right now, and spent the day in San Francisco. We ate a most incredible dinner at a Vegan restaurant called Millenniun. It was indescribably (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim

(...) Wow, sounds good but definitely not cheap. (...) I bet the other Christopher meant fast food places and pizza joints. When I lived in Michigan, there were hardly any good places to get decent vegetarian meals, and only one true vegan (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) The cheap grazing leads to higher profits. These profits are then taxed. (...) My question betrays our cultural differences. There are may in my country (not myself) who feel that we should remain self sufficient in food encase we come under (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And the taxes, which do not capture the true market cost of overgrazing, are then spent on whatever programs the government feels like, rather than on alleviating the problem. Surely you're not seriously arguing that this is efficient, or (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Scott Arthur

(...) Perhaps other problems are bigger? Son of Star Wars perhaps? (...) I do not know enough about the situation to say that. (...) Britain (...) I do not think anyone promotes what happened in the USSR as true "communism". To see how little the (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Here's a concrete real-world example that may work for working through this: Monarch Butterfies are increasingly threaten with extinction in the coming decades mainly by destruction and degradation of their summer and winter habitats. I (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) At the end of the article you pointed us to they suggest leasing or buying the land...so why not? This one seems kind of easy. Everyone who wants to protect the monarchs bucks up a little bit and buys the 14 (or whatever) sites where they (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) This is one reason I really like the Nature Conservancy. The bulk of their effort goes to acquiring property, either through outright purchase, or by attaining conservation easements. Once they have acquired property rights by (mostly) free (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I do a lot of work with TNC myself, and all I can say is the stuff they do is simply amazing- both on the surface and behind the scenes. -chris (23 years ago, 29-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I think there is a major push to buy up many of the sites in Mexico. (...) This is largely what I expected we would come up. I'm all for protecting as many species/ecosystems as we can in developed/developing areas but, and I may be taking (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Great! I'd prefer to see it done through private works, but if our government wanted to be involved, surely we could offer Mexico stuff in exchange for the land that they would value more. (...) Are there any left? I'm fine with that too, but (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) This is where the issue of fragmentation comes into effect. For those not in the know, fragmentation is the disruption of large extensive habitat patches into smaller, isolated, less hospitable patches. The 80% number in your example, would (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'm probably in the ultra-minor minority of Americans who would like to pay for the real price of oil- mainly to reflect the true environmental costs. I don't mind paying the currently high prices but, I think I'v unintentially deluded myself (...) (24 years ago, 18-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Me too, actually. It seems to me like the only fair thing to do, and as long as it's a user fee that is pretty fairly apportioned, then I'd have no complaints. I'd actually like to see some reasonable attempt to remediate environmental damages (...) (24 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Chris, you never cease to amaze me. :) IMO, The automobile is arguably the greatest threat to environmental and social quality, and is probably one of the most subsidized sectors of the world's economy. I was able to explain and demostrate (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Shiri Dori

(...) Chris's in general never cease to amaze me... <grin>... and you two both just did. (...) Arguably? *Arguably*?! I mean, show me anything else with greater threat. (...) <nod> I wish the government(s... all over the world) would invest in (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl

(...) NO, you won't actually. It will have to be cheaper AND more convenient. Too many public transportation systems are"broken" in that you have to use your CAR to get to them in the first place. There was an article in the SJ Merc last week or the (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) Which won't happen anytime in the near future. One of the biggest impediments to 'universal' public transportation is that our current model of suburban development does not lend itself to fast and convienent transit options. (...) While I (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher Tracey

(...) I don't know... nuclear weapons, rogue asteriods, monsanto corporation, Planet Lunch(tm), the juniorasation of LEGO. ;) (...) you forgot the *more* :) I take the train pretty often. I wish it was cheaper and faster as well. A few years back... (...) (23 years ago, 4-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm thinking that's an insult. All I did was express a reasonable idea. :-) (...) I think Shiri suggested that she'd like to see PT subsidized ahead of cars. That is _so_ the wrong way to handle this. We just need to unsubsidize cars: (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Big, heavy, expensive vehicle - not cheap to repair. Bad brakes, poor emergency handling, prone to heavily damaging other vehicles in accidents it caused. Not that the proper level of fees can't be handled in other ways. (...) This either (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) OK, so _maybe_ SUV owners should pay more for insurance, but not because it consumes more gas. Should I have used the example of a car with a leaking gas tank instead? My point was that gas used is not closely correlated with how I think (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) Of course I'm the exception to prove the rule... Of the significant accidents I've been in since I've been down here, 2 out of 3 have been on the interstate, though still in commuter traffic. Hmm, trying to think of accidents or accident like (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) As long as you can't do that with a hotel room, I should be OK. This year, maybe I'll drive us out to The Store... Chris (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Rolling Blackouts —Frank Filz

(...) I haven't managed to total any hotel rooms yet (though other members of my college SF club did discover that silly string doesn't just wipe off the walls one time at a convention... fortunately they took the responsibility and didn't pass it (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)