XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: alangbaker@telus.net   
      
   In article ,   
    Gary L. Burnore  wrote:   
      
   > On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:48:14 -0800, Alan Baker    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > >In article ,   
   > > Gary L. Burnore  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:16:19 -0800, Alan Baker    
   > >> wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >> >In article ,   
   > >> > Gary L. Burnore  wrote:   
   > >> >   
   > >> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 23:33:41 GMT, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net   
   > >> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >In article ,   
   > >> >> >dr_jeff   wrote:   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >>So? Having a car costs around $100 a week. That can be put to other   
   > >> >> >>things, like retirement funds. Sounds like a good idea to me. Saving   
   > >> >> >>money is a good thing.   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >Having a car does not cost $100/week.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> (for you).   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> >On the other hand, my public transit commute does cost $90/week.   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >>You forgot reason #7:   
   > >> >> >>   
   > >> >> >>Taking the bus or subway is often more convenient than driving. For   
   > >> >> >>example, during rush hour, I can go from lower Manhattan to the Bronx   
   > >> >> >>or   
   > >> >> >>Brooklyn in 1/2 hour. You can't do that by car, even if you have   
   > >> >> >>lights   
   > >> >> >>and a siren.   
   > >> >> >   
   > >> >> >The large majority of the time (which includes almost all the time in   
   > >> >> >places in the US other than NYC), the car is more convenient.   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> Bullshit of course.  Do you really think large and medium sized cities   
   > >> >> are exempt from gridlock?  Do you think sitting in traffic on a   
   > >> >> freeway is more convenient than the rail line running next to it?   
   > >> >   
   > >> >How many people can truly live without an automobile?   
   > >>   
   > >> When I lived in NY, I sold my car.  Bought one when I moved.  Lived   
   > >> there 4 years.  Loved it.  When I lived in SF, 2 yrs.  Spent the first   
   > >> 6 months with my car parked a couple of MILES from my house.  Did   
   > >> without it just fine.   
   > >   
   > >NY City? One of the few places in the U.S. where that might be possible.   
   >   
   > Hardly true.  I can name many other cities where it works just fine.   
   > In fact, even in smaller towns, if you live downtown, you have no need   
   > for a car if you don't WANT one.   
      
   LOL   
      
   You live in a fantasy world.   
      
   Cars cost a lot of money. Almost everyone buys a car. Ergo, those people   
   find cars necessary.   
      
   > >   
   > >SF? You've just demonstrated my point.   
   >   
   > You haven't made a point. You asked a question.  If you claim that   
   > question as your point, you have failed miserably.  There are far more   
   > reasons to NOT have a car than to have a car.   
   >   
   > >You "did just fine"...   
   >   
   > Yep. Walked a lot. Rode my bicycle even more.   
   >   
   > >...but you   
   > >not only kept the car, you clearly changed the arrangement so it   
   > >wouldn't be "MILES from your house".   
   > >   
   >   
   > Plesse provide evidence that I said that or retract.   
      
   So after the first 6 months your car was still "MILES from your house"?   
      
   >   
   >   
   > >>   
   > >> If you live in the sticks it's another story, of course. :)   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> >   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> > "Often"   
   > >> >> >is vastly overstating the case unless you restrict yourself to NYC.   
   > >> >> >(and Lower Manhattan to the Bronx in 1/2 hour is pushing it; you've   
   > >> >> >got to catch the right subway without any waiting)   
   > >> >>   
   > >> >> You're equating speed with convenience.  They are not the same.   
   > >> >   
   > >> >How else would you measure it?   
   > >>   
   > >> Many ways.  For example, it's more convenient to hail a cab and have   
   > >> it take you somewhere, but it's not always faster.   
   > >   
   > >That's not assigning a criterion to convenience.   
   >   
   > Sure it is.   It might be FASTER for me to walk to my car, but it   
   > would be more convenient to walk out and hold my hand in the air for a   
   > minute and then get in a car that someone ELSE drives.    Speed and   
   > convenience are not the same thing.   
      
   Define "convenience" without using the word "convenient".   
      
   >   
   > >   
   > >>   
   > >> Convenience has to do with how convenient something is. Not how fast   
   > >> you can do it.  :)   
   > >   
   > >You can't define "convenience" with the word "convenient".   
   >   
   > Thus the smily.  Figured you wouldn't understand.   
      
   So you won't provide an actual definition...   
      
   ...I figured you couldn't.   
      
   --   
   Alan Baker   
   Vancouver, British Columbia   
      
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)