Pat wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2:03 pm, Bolwerk <bolw...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Pat wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 8:05 pm, Miles Bader <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Pat <gro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>>> It's not that I just want to whine, it is that I think that many of
>>>>> the posts are extraordinarily ego-centric and arogant. You want to
>>>>> live in some manner and think that everyone else should live in that
>>>>> manner too. There is a feeling of moral snugness and superiority
that
>>>>> is appalling.
>>>> You have just described your own posts, to a "t". This is why we
mock you.
>>>> -Miles
>>>> --
>>>> "1971 pickup truck; will trade for guns"
>>> If you read what I say, not what you think I say, you will know that I
>>> advocate letting people live the way they want. Not trying to force
>>> people to some "norm". Frankly, I don't give a darn how someone else
>>> lives. I just wish others were the same and didn't discuss "banning
>>> cars" and such. Live and let live.
>> Not that there's anything wrong with a locality banning cars if it
wants
>> to, but who here is talking about banning cars? The only people who
>> ever bring it up are falsely attributing it to others to make them look
>> bad, as far as I can tell.
>
> Well, to start, the easier post I saw was from Donquijote who proposed
> banning drivers (which is, in effect, banning cars because you can't
> have one without the other). He said, " we are trying to develop
> alternatives (bikes, public trans****tation) for the moment when 70% of
> drivers are banned from the road... "
For some reason, I can't see his messages, but it sounds to me like that
applies to where he lives. What happened to "live and let live"?
>> Naturally, talking about reducing the subsidy that goes to cars, or
>> making them meet more stringent emissions standards, are not the same
>> thing as "banning" them.
>
> He wasn't worried about subsidies as much as he just didn't like the
> way that they drove.
People do drive pretty badly sometimes too. I see no reason not to
restrict automobile usage in some places/cir***stances (such as when
congestion is a major problem), though I don't go so far as to say they
should be banned.
>> As for "live and let live," I'm all for that, but unfortunately the
cost
>> of maintaining automobile (or other trans****tation, for that matter)
>> infrastructure comes out of everyone's pockets. So it's not that
>> simple, sadly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well, until they make a bicycle that can pull a 40' trailor, you need
> the trucks. Until they put convenient trans****tation everywhere,
> we'll need our cars. But I don't think that public trans****t is
> coming soon to most of the country. It will remain just for those who
> choose to live an urban lifestyle.
>
> Meanwhile, everyone is sup****ting everyone else. So accept it and get
> used to it.
>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
|
