Not a definition that I would disagree with but one which represents a truly
miniscule part of those that actually care about the damage we as humans
(particularly American humans) do to our environment.
-----Original Message-----
From: Art Bahrs [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] [OT] Blatant disrespect for the international
community
Hi John :)
One definition for "Enviro-Wacko" could be member of E.L.F? At least
round here it could be ... to protest the pollution SUV's cause they set
fire using gas bombs about 30+ New SUV's on a Dealership lot down south of
here a couple years ago... now one editorial writer did ask the question
which causes more pollution those SUV's on the road or them burning to slag
after exploding?
Not to mention the simple "let's destroy others property illegally to
show we are right" :(
Art
=======================================================
Art Bahrs, CISSP Information Security The Regence Group
(503) 553-1425 FAX (503) 553-1453
|---------+-------------------------------->
| | "John Testa" |
| | <[log in to unmask]
| | > |
| | Sent by: "HP-3000 |
| | Systems Discussion" |
| | <[log in to unmask]
| | DU> |
| | |
| | |
| | 11/03/2004 11:03 AM |
| | Please respond to |
| | TestaJ |
| | |
| | |-------------------||
| | | [ ] Secure E-mail ||
| | |-------------------||
|---------+-------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: [log in to unmask]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] [OT] Blatant disrespect for the
international community |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------|
What's an "enviro-wacko"?
Someone who actually gives a crap about the air we breathe? Someone who
cares about global deforestation and what it's doing to our ecosystem? The
odd whole in the ozone layer?
These are things every educated person should wonder about, maybe read some
science about, and at least have a vague notion that such things matter.
The fact you lived in Houston for 41 years kind of explains everything
though.
John Testa
SLPS Homewood
708-647-4346
[log in to unmask]
Jay Maynard
<jmaynard@conmicr To:
[log in to unmask]
o.cx> cc:
Sent by: HP-3000 Subject: Re: [HP3000-L]
[OT] Blatant disrespect for the international
Systems community
Discussion
<[log in to unmask]
TC.EDU>
11/03/2004 10:55
AM
Please respond to
Jay Maynard
(Apologies to those who filter OT posts for not making sure the tag was on
my previous message. It's been added.)
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 08:07:37AM -0800, Russ Smith wrote:
> I think, however, that any remark made by them (or anyone for that
matter)
> that fuel efficiency should be one of the primary focuses of vehicle
design
> and that our vehicles simply are not fuel efficient enough given today's
> technology are perfectly valid.
I can't agree. First off, I think safety trumps efficiency. Second, an
efficient car that gains its efficiency at a much higher cost than that of
the fuel saved is flatly stupid, economically. This puts it in the same
category as so much else that enviro-wackos want: if it's a massive
increase
in cost to be marginally more effective environmentally, it makes no sense.
> Admittedly, with Denys living in a part of our country where many people
> make their living in the oil industries, there may be bias there away
from
> doing so, but wouldn't you like to have your SUV, and have it get 80 mpg?
> It's possible, and should have already happened.
Actually, I'm more likely to have that bias than Denys is, since I lived in
Houston for the first 41 years of my life.
I don't for a minute believe that it's possible to build my SUV in such a
way that its fuel economy quadruples, retain all its current driving
qualities, retain its safety level, and not increase its cost by an order
of
magnitude. (And I'm being charitable because it's a luxury SUV in the first
place. Were I to drive a Toyota RAV4 instead of a Lexus RX300, the cost
factor would be at least 20.) To think otherwise is simply dreaming...
because otherwise Toyota would be pumping them off the line as fast as they
could make them. Witness the fact that the Prius (which wouldn't do me a
damn bit of good anyway, since nearly all of my miles driven are at highway
speed, where a hybrid gains no advantage) has a year-long waiting list, and
its economy is nowhere near 80 MPG, and it's nowhere near as versatile as
an
SUV.
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
===========================================================================
==
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This communication, including any attachment, contains
information that may be confidential or privileged, and is intended solely
for the entity or individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified
that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message is strictly
prohibited. Nothing in this email, including any attachment, is intended to
be a legally binding signature.
===========================================================================
==
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
