XPost: alt.planning.urban   
   From: one-if-by-land@concord.com   
      
   "Kris Krieger"  wrote in message   
   news:13rmd69hr5on204@corp.supernews.com...   
   > "Don"  wrote in   
   > news:fpc71002l3l@news2.newsguy.com:   
   >   
   >> "Jack May"> wrote   
   >>> Just because some people can't afford a car IN NO WAY implies that   
   >>> public transit is the solution.  There are other options that are far   
   >>> cheaper like transportation subsidies for the poor.   
   >>   
   >> OK, I just let the dogs loose.  =D   
   >> I think you hit it right there Jack, and I've said so myself in the   
   >> past. The people that bitch the loudest about cars are not car owners   
   >> themselves, for whatever reason, most likely economics.   
   >> This is based in envy, an emotion, with no logic at its root.   
   >   
   > Hold on, thre.  I'm not talking out of envy.  I have a car.  It's a   
   > modest car but that's because i've no need for a gas-guzzler.  When I say   
   > that gas mileage out to be pared down, that's not anything to do with   
   > envy, it's got to do with the additional pollution, additional resources   
   > used, additional wear onthe roads, and so on, which is, in a sense,   
   > subsidized by those who drive smalleer and mroe economical vehicles.  I'm   
   > not the one kvetching about gas prices - I don't use that much of it and   
   > the prices were a hell of a lto higher in Canada, where we lived for 10   
   > years.  THe people kvetching about gas are the ones using huge amounts of   
   > it, and not becasue they need a truck so as to conduct business.   
   >   
   >> If, as Pat said, all the cities burned down these folks would starve   
   >> or be killed because they wouldn't be able to go *where the food is*   
   >> or escape danger.   
   >> Their glass house is built upon shifting sand - cities fail.   
   >> They can choose where they want to live of course but I think its   
   >> disingenuous on their part to expect others to live as they suggest.   
   >   
   > Again, his reply was directly to what i said, and one thing I have   
   > *never* suggested is taht everyone "should" go live here or go live   
   > there.   
   >   
   > I don't even hate cities.  They have a prupose, and they do have their   
   > benefits.   
   >   
   > I believe in diversity.  I merely think that diversity can be *more   
   > efficient* than it currently is.   
      
   My post wasn't directed at you, because you aren't squealing very loud and   
   you admit to owning a car.   
   You realize a car is a neccesity to your lifestyle and I am in agreement   
   with that.   
   I also believe that if you could effect the polution your lifestyle choices   
   produce, economically, you would do so.   
   Like you, I don't care where other people choose to live or how they want to   
   run their lives.   
   What I object to, always, are people that think they know better then me how   
   I should run my life.   
   I just don't understand them.   
   All I can figure is that they don't have enough in their lives to fulfill   
   them and spend their days in envy of others.   
   If only they'd get a clue and quit wasting their lives on silly little   
   bullshit like that.   
   They're spitting at the minnows while the whales are shitting all over   
   them............   
      
      
      
   >> I'm not demanding others go out and get cars and reject outright   
   >> anyone telling me I shouldn't have one, or I am less of a person for   
   >> owning one or that I should be concerned about *their* air quality.   
   >> I was concerned about air quality, and the quality of lots of other   
   >> things but I didn't whine about them, I grabbed it by the neck and   
   >> made my life do what I want it too and placed no demands on others in   
   >> my journey. I'm here and this is where I'll stay, with my truck.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)