Doug Kanter wrote:
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..


You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.



Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked them
why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple, usually:
They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because they feel it's
safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more luggage space. Not
seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually dangerous, but never
mind that for the moment.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through streams,
like you see in the commercials. They would not know the difference between
a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They just want their boxy
up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a vehicle that uses less
fuel.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens at
used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy dealers
here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly trades for
smaller cars.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.



I'm sure most 'city drivers' would be happy with something like a Subaru
Forrester. Car like handling, boxier compartment..although a bit
cramped, and AWD in case you get a dusting of snow.
My sister is on her 2nd. Had a plain 2004 and just upgraded to fancier 2006.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

You keep making judgments about the appropriateness of vehicles for
people, why? Last time I checked I had the freedom to purchase any
vehicle I want. If I want a big gas sucking pig of a vehicle what
business is it of yours? It is my money?

You keep responding this way. Why? Nobody except you has suggested that
when Ford produces a leaner SUV, you will be unable to buy the original
variety. If you disagree, please provide quotes or other evidence of
where I've said this. I suspect you have problems when I say most people
don't need the truck capabilities, but in fact, it is true.

This country is not based upon needs, it is based upon wants and desires.


Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually
dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close
personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to someone
based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a
vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

As far as needs, an awful lot of people are apparently realizing that SUVs
did not meet their needs, and in return for this disappointment they were
paying outrageous fuel bills. Around here, they're lined up by the dozens
at used car lots. A buddy of mine works for one of the larger Chevy
dealers here. He says these SUVs are not lease returns - they're mostly
trades for smaller cars.

Never leased a car and never will. I buy new and keep them for a long time.
The shortest period I have owned a vehicle is four years and the average is
somewhere around eight years. The last two vehicles that we got rid of were
a large sedan and a 1/2 ton truck, both donated to charity, the sedan was 8
years old when we donated it and the truck was 7 years old. I currently own
a full size truck and a mini-van, the truck is 6 years old and the mini-van
is 10 years old.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car every
two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven years.
You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of money.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas
sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no
monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way
the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less.

This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the
gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle
on oil consumption. It's a common response, though.

Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil
consumption?

Just a few weeks back, your lord and master said in a speech that we were
addicted to oil and needed to reduce our consumption. Was he wrong? Are
you doubting your commander in chief?

Your lord and master wants you to return to the pre-industrial revolution
age while he stays in the present. It is about controlling the population.
Restrict their ability to move about and to get informaiton.

We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the country
and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that you will
get on board with that, won't you?

No. Not enough of our electricity is generated with oil. Vehicles and
heating are the major consumers.

In order to realize new energy transfer technologies we will need large
quantities of electricity available (e.g. Hydrogen)

Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they
are not doing what you believe they should be doing?

I don't know where you get this "controlling others" bull**** from. Let's
see if you can answer a straight question. You walk into a Ford dealership
and say you want an SUV. The salesman explains that they now offer two
categories. One has a V-8 and 4 wheel drive. The other comes only with a
V-6 and 2 wheel drive. The two varieties are the exact same size inside,
and offer all the same accessory & trim packages. He asks you a few
questions about whether you'll be towing anything, and where you do most
of your driving. He then points out that based on your answers, you'll be
lucky to get 14 mpg with the V-8, but you'll easily get 20-24 with the
V-6. Then, he says "But, it's up to you, obviously".

I would chose the V-8.

Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your
behavior?

When the choice is taken away based upon the desire to change or control
behavior that is where social engineering comes into play and it has proved
it is a failure.

Innovation and choice have made the USA the best country in the world. If we
are not the best country in the world then why are we the most desired
emigration destination.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:01:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your
behavior?

Doug, your cabin fever is showing again. Why not shovel the driveway,
go down to the corner store and buy a nice boating magazine. It will
calm you down and get you thinking "on topic".


I'm totally on topic here, Wayne.

You are not on topic your are on the podium preaching to the wrong
congregation.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is actually
dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or close
personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in a
vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of
your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There is
absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use the
mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff like
"Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000 feet,
there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and lots of
people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs belong, as
opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey.

I'll bet you a month's salary the average SUV-driving soccer mom doesn't
even know where the 4WD switch is located.


Never leased a car and never will. I buy...
snipped clutter which was unrelated to the discussion


Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car
every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven
years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling of
money.

More clutter. Not relevant.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
news

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 04:01:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your
behavior?

Doug, your cabin fever is showing again. Why not shovel the driveway,
go down to the corner store and buy a nice boating magazine. It will
calm you down and get you thinking "on topic".


I'm totally on topic here, Wayne.

You are not on topic your are on the podium preaching to the wrong
congregation.



That makes two of us, then.

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

People make comments about my needing to buy a more fuel efficient
vehicle, I currently drive an 2001 F150 SuperCrew with a 5.4L V8 gas
sucking engine. I pay for insurance, fuel and maintenance. I have no
monthly payment which costs me about $350 per month. There is no way
the total cost of ownership of a new vehicle is going to cost less.

This is an example of wrong thinking. Your ability to afford the
gasoline has no bearing whatsoever on the national need to get a handle
on oil consumption. It's a common response, though.

Wrong thinking? What is the national need to get a handle on oil
consumption?

Just a few weeks back, your lord and master said in a speech that we were
addicted to oil and needed to reduce our consumption. Was he wrong? Are
you doubting your commander in chief?

Your lord and master wants you to return to the pre-industrial revolution
age while he stays in the present. It is about controlling the population.
Restrict their ability to move about and to get informaiton.

Stick with the subject of oil. This has nothing to do with restricting
anyone's ability to move about. If you think I'm wrong, explain the
connection.



We could sove the problem by building nuclear plants all over the
country and reduce our consumption of oil dramatically. I suppose that
you will get on board with that, won't you?

No. Not enough of our electricity is generated with oil. Vehicles and
heating are the major consumers.

In order to realize new energy transfer technologies we will need large
quantities of electricity available (e.g. Hydrogen)


Go get more coffee. You're having problems following your own train of
thought from yesterday.



Or, are you more interested in controlling others behavior because they
are not doing what you believe they should be doing?

I don't know where you get this "controlling others" bull**** from. Let's
see if you can answer a straight question. You walk into a Ford
dealership and say you want an SUV. The salesman explains that they now
offer two categories. One has a V-8 and 4 wheel drive. The other comes
only with a V-6 and 2 wheel drive. The two varieties are the exact same
size inside, and offer all the same accessory & trim packages. He asks
you a few questions about whether you'll be towing anything, and where
you do most of your driving. He then points out that based on your
answers, you'll be lucky to get 14 mpg with the V-8, but you'll easily
get 20-24 with the V-6. Then, he says "But, it's up to you, obviously".

I would chose the V-8.

Are you telling me that by offering you a choice, he is controlling your
behavior?

When the choice is taken away based upon the desire to change or control
behavior that is where social engineering comes into play and it has
proved it is a failure.

In the paragraph above, beginning with "I don't know where you get this",
please point out where a choice has been taken away.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is
actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or
close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model. They
just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that wish, in
a vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and DOD
might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window of
your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago. There
is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually use
the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out stuff
like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation 3000
feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy there, and
lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where SUVs
belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping mall in
Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than
there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than in
the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the manufacturers
providing those choices.

People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad?

I'll bet you a month's salary the average SUV-driving soccer mom doesn't
even know where the 4WD switch is located.


Never leased a car and never will. I buy...
snipped clutter which was unrelated to the discussion

Why was it unrelated to the discussion. I made a choice and I stuck with it
because it is more economically beneficial to me.

Apparently, the public is more able to make good decisions than you give
them credit for.

The public, in general, moves with the wind. The public buys a new car
every two to three years and finances it for anywhere from five to seven
years. You should be chastising them about their irresponsible handling
of money.

More clutter. Not relevant.

Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices? Does your family appreciate you
making all of their daily decisions for them. Will your children live with
your for the rest of their lives?

"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..

Have you ever known anyone for whom an SUV seemed all wrong, and asked
them why they bought one? I have. Their wants and desires are simple,
usually: They want a boxy vehicle that's higher off the ground because
they feel it's safer in collisions. It probably is. And, they want more
luggage space. Not seating. Luggage space. (Uncovered luggage is
actually dangerous, but never mind that for the moment.

No, I haven't asked any vehicle owner that wasn't a family member or
close personoal friend why they own a particular vehicle.

Make a presumption as to whether or not a vehicle is appropriate to
someone based upon seeing them once is ridiculous and idiotic.

These people do not fantasize about driving over rocks and through
streams, like you see in the commercials. They would not know the
difference between a 4WD 8-cylinder SUV and a 2WD 6 cylinder model.
They just want their boxy up-off-the-ground car. They can have that
wish, in a vehicle that uses less fuel.

Your powers of calirvoiance are amazing. The State Departmet, CIA and
DOD might be interested in hiring you.

Either you weren't alive in the 1970s, or you never look out the window
of your car. There are vastly more SUVs around now than 30+ years ago.
There is absolutely NO WAY all these new owners are the type who actually
use the mechanical capabilities of those vehicles. And, don't blurt out
stuff like "Oh yeah? Well, in places like Big Gulch, Colorado, elevation
3000 feet, there were always lots of SUVs 'cause it snows like crazy
there, and lots of people live on unpaved roads". Of course. That's where
SUVs belong, as opposed to making up 50% of the vehicles in a shopping
mall in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

I was around in the '70's. There are vastly fewer station wagons now than
there were SUV's. There are vastly more fuel efficient vehicles now than
in the '70's. This is all due to choice by the buyers and the
manufacturers providing those choices.

People should have a choice. Why don't you argue that choice is bad?


I'm not arguing that choices should be taken away. You keep saying this. So,
let's try another way. According to Ford, the company trying to develop a
much more efficient SUV, but with the same physical size & comfort features
of their current ones. They will still continue to sell the more powerful
ones, as well. This information came from a Ford spokesperson. DO YOU
BELIEVE THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE?




Why do you want to control the public's behavior? Why do you want to take
away their freedom by removing choices?

I'm describing how a company is developing a NEW set of choices, not taking
away an existing choice. How do you interpret that as a desire on my part to
limit choices?



Does your family appreciate you making all of their daily decisions for
them. Will your children live with your for the rest of their lives?

You've tried this "family" stunt before, when you're about to run out of
ideas and you're being backed into an alley. Drop it.

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in
:

Are you the same Fred Dehl who suggested that ANWR, a tiny incremental
step, would be better than nothing?

You're the only one who's suggested ANWR is a "tiny incremental step".
It's far more than that.

Use numbers. What percentage is, or is not incremental, in your opinion?




And yes, one new vehicle could make a difference. Ford & GM didn't
take the idea of mini-vans

Mini-vans are loathed by your ilk.

Not relevant to this discussion. This is about marketing a product, not my
opinion of certain vehicles.



seriously until Chrysler started selling
them like hotcakes. One highly efficient SUV that's successful will
lead the competition into the same market.

The cost of operating these SUVs is little different from operating a gas
one.

I'll need a link for your source of that information. Good luck. The
vehicles don't exist yet.