# oil



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

So, Obama is not going to allow oil drilling in the gulf or the Atlantic for seven years.  Wow.  At least we have those reserves of magical pixie dust that will allow us to heat our homes, fuel our vehicles and help us become less dependent on terrorist supporting oil countries.  I cannot wait for 2012.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> So, Obama is not going to allow oil drilling in the gulf or the Atlantic for seven years.  Wow.  At least we have those reserves of magical pixie dust that will allow us to heat our homes, fuel our vehicles and help us become less dependent on terrorist supporting oil countries.  I cannot wait for 2012.



Hmm, are you going to pay for the damages the oil spill caused?

maybe, just maybe, the solution lies by exploring measures to not _use_ oil. Like driving more economic, _smaller_ cars, produce less _plastic_ waste, or, heaven forbid, recycle. 

Not to mention the oil resources are limited and not replenishable and probably a reason for global warming. You know, releasing Carbon into the atmosphere that was bound under ground for a few million years...

but that is just an educated estimation.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 3, 2010)

It'll drive innovation and help protect the coast.  I'm all for it.


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Smaller cars cause more traffic deaths.  Global warming is already so bad that they say by June temperatures in North America will rise by 40 or 50 degrees.  I'm all for nuke plants.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Smaller cars cause more traffic deaths.  Global warming is already so bad that they say by June temperatures in North America will rise by 40 or 50 degrees.  I'm all for nuke plants.



Take a trip to Tschernobyl then. Nuke plants are really great...

also, if everybody drives a small car it evens out. Or people need to actually pay attention and put the cell phone down.


----------



## Omar B (Dec 3, 2010)

You can do safe nuclear.  Nuclear is an idea that's very attractive to me, if done right its very safe and clean.  Right now France has the highest rate of nuclear use at 75%, the US is a little over 22%.

Don't use Russia as an example.  As the old saying goes "Russia, good ideas, bad implementation."


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

Omar B said:


> You can do safe nuclear.  Nuclear is an idea that's very attractive to me, if done right its very safe and clean.  Right now France has the highest rate of nuclear use at 75%, the US is a little over 22%.
> 
> Don't use Russia as an example.  As the old saying goes "Russia, good ideas, bad implementation."



The followup cost is simply too high. There are piles and piles of used uranium and plutonium that won't be safe to be exposed to for a long long time. 

The example was to show that when things go bad with a reactor it worse than the greatest assumable problem...Maybe one had to have been in Europe when it blew: The sun is shining the grass is green and yet you are to remain indoors...

There are better options already available. Arguably many patents are hidden in the vaults of the big companies as they would cut into their market share and profits.


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Smaller cars cause more traffic deaths. Global warming is already so bad that they say by June temperatures in North America will rise by 40 or 50 degrees. I'm all for nuke plants.


Have you completely abandoned reason or are you intentionally trying to muddy the waters with blatant hyperbole?

In this very short post, you make two assertions I'd like to see you support:



Smaller cars cause more traffic deaths.
"They" say by June temperatures in North America will rise by 40 or 50 degrees. (While I'm hoping you're making a lame Summer vs Winter joke, I'm not holding my breath)

Can you support either?


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

lol, he said BY....missed that...


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> help us become less dependent on terrorist supporting oil countries.


 

Because the main country you are depending for oil is that terrorist state of Canada. Oh wait, we're worse than that, we're socialists.


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Yahoo "Small car death rates"  and you will find the info.  Smaller cars are more dangerous for the people inside of them during collisions, more people will die.  Of course this helps the healthcare system.  Instead of an Ambulance, you can send an organ harvesting wagon to the scene of small car accidents.  More dead people also lowers the burden on the healthcare system so I see your point about forcing people to drive them.

Yeah, if you check out weather experts they will tell you that global warming is so extreme now that by June of this year temperatures in North America are going to go up about 40 to  50 degrees.  That is pretty intense.  How will we survive?

Also, the fact that we will not get the oil from the gulf and the pacific will not help you with your global warming.  Obama has given, I think I heard, 10 million, or is it billion dollars to Brazil to increase their oil drilling in the gulf.  I think his friend George Soros has something to do with that.  Also, China, Russia, Venezuela, all the usual bad guys will also be drilling in the gulf.  So the countries with the worst pollution problems will be getting the most oil, and eventually they may be selling it back to us.  I cannot wait till 2012 rollls around.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 3, 2010)

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will if I am wrong, but isn't the ban on NEW drilling.

As far as vehicle deaths go, SUVs and pickups have a higher rate of mortality in accidents that small cars for the last 10 years.


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Wall street journal reports the brazil and Soros connection but factcheck.org says that it is not true.  I guess more checking is needed.  Just back, Soros was manipulating his options in a way that fact check didn't get into.  Check out the bloomberg business site where they write about the reason he took one type of stock over the other.  Essentially, he made more money.


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yahoo "Small car death rates" and you will find the info. Smaller cars are more dangerous for the people inside of them during collisions, more people will die. Of course this helps the healthcare system. Instead of an Ambulance, you can send an organ harvesting wagon to the scene of small car accidents. More dead people also lowers the burden on the healthcare system so I see your point about forcing people to drive them.


Why don't you try giving me some actual support for your assertion.  Which small cars?  How small?  Are you looking at crash test ratings?  Have you found a site that catalogues crashes by make and model?  Are you limiting your statement to late model cars or are you including 1970's era "small cars" like the Datsun B210?  Does the Yugo count or an early '80s Hyundai?  I'd agree, if you're including those, that they're pretty sketchy in a crash.

Late model cars like the MINI Cooper, the VW Beetle or Golf, the Ford Focus, the Toyota Yaris and others got 4 or 5 stars in crash tests, and overall, small cars are pretty safe in a crash.   

I did go to Yahoo and searched for "small car death rates."  The first site that came up was this one:  

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/03/15/012250.html

It's an interesting read, and makes sense.  The lighter the car, the more dangerous in a head on collision.  But then it goes on to talk about rollovers and bigger SUVs are, statistically more dangerous.  

The IIHS website has its list of "safe cars".  There are a number of small cars and even a "minicar".  The Ford Focus got very good ratings all the way around.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx

The second link is an article that talks about the death rate of cars in general... not quite relevant.  But the third link.  That was interesting:

http://carfamily.wordpress.com/2008/07/05/death-rates-for-small-car-occupants-down-large-suvs-dead/



> The death rate for drivers for small cars continues to fall and are now at the same rate as drivers of large pick-up trucks giving small car scared cats a glimpse of the reality that big vehicles are not safer for the vast majority of families.


Huh.

Now, don't get me wrong. In a head on crash, physics is physics.  If you're in a lighter, smaller car in a head on with something bigger it's not going to go well for you.  The point I'm making is that I think you're making things up as you go, trying to twist facts to fit your opinion rather than shaping your opinion to facts.  

All told, I'd prefer to avoid crashes altogether, but I've driven small cars all my life, and my personal opinion is that the single most important safety feature in any car is an undistracted, defensive driver.


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Bjj I gave you the way to find the data and from what you pointed to I am correct.  Smaller cars are more dangerous in collisions, did I say roll overs?


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Bjj I gave you the way to find the data and from what you pointed to I am correct.  Smaller cars are more dangerous in collisions, did I say roll overs?


Rollovers are an SUV thing...and still car accidents.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 3, 2010)

this thread has so much fail its a win lol
I get sick of people trying to tell me what i have to do though. they can take the small cars and shove them, I wont drive them, its either motorcycles or SuVs for me, although I do like some of the newer crossovers.
I didnt see one fact listed in this thread by either side so far that does not have completely opposite "evidence" refuting it... from the small cars being the worst, to the big ones being the worst, to oil being limited, to anything i read.
it is humorous though, other then those know it alls who keep trying to tell me i have to drive what they think i have to drive. They just disgust me. I dont tell you how to chose what you drive, where you live, or how you live as long as you are not threatening my way of life. My driving a big car doesnt threaten your way of life, I pay more then my share of taxes because of it too, so I see no problem there


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

But luckyboxer, you are killing the planet with your gas guzzling S.U.V.  Do you feel any guilt for your crime?


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2010)

Making the planet a little less hospitable to human life perhaps.  Earth'll do just fine after we're long gone.

What is for sure is that setting fire to oil to make lumps of metal move, whether those metal bits are cars, air-con units or computers is about the least useful thing you can do with it.

The big problem is that it is proving darned difficult to come up with a viable alternative for a mobile power-source.  We're getting there tho', allbeit with baby-steps.  When we do, it'll still be a shame that the sound of roaring flat-sixes, lovely rumbling V8's and silky V12's will fade away .

But at least we'll be able to use what oil reserves are left for something more enduringly useful than transport or electricity generation.


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Bjj I gave you the way to find the data and from what you pointed to I am correct.  Smaller cars are more dangerous in collisions, did I say roll overs?



No.  you didn't.  You said smaller cars cause more traffic deaths.  Very different.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2010)

As an aside, if someone can solve the problem of rectifying electricity down from billions of Hz to a useable frequency, we'll all be quids-in when it comes to power:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/infrared-solar-panels-even-work-at-night-but-cant-output-energ/

How annoying is that?!  To have a pretty good answer to the planet's consumer energy needs and not be able to access it because the frequency is too high!


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> this thread has so much fail its a win lol
> I get sick of people trying to tell me what i have to do though. they can take the small cars and shove them, I wont drive them, its either motorcycles or SuVs for me, although I do like some of the newer crossovers.
> I didnt see one fact listed in this thread by either side so far that does not have completely opposite "evidence" refuting it... from the small cars being the worst, to the big ones being the worst, to oil being limited, to anything i read.
> it is humorous though, other then those know it alls who keep trying to tell me i have to drive what they think i have to drive. They just disgust me. I dont tell you how to chose what you drive, where you live, or how you live as long as you are not threatening my way of life. My driving a big car doesnt threaten your way of life, I pay more then my share of taxes because of it too, so I see no problem there



I actually agree with this.  Is anyone telling you to drive a small car?


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Bjj I gave you the way to find the data and from what you pointed to I am correct.  Smaller cars are more dangerous in collisions, did I say roll overs?



I think that a large part of this is that small cars are more dangerous to their occupants when they are run over by gargantuan SuV's that most people don't actually need .  We call them 'Chelsea Tractors' over here in Blighty and they are used by middle-class mums to take little Johnny to school (as clearly his poor legs are atrophied so he can't walk!).

I have to keep tight lipped on these matters tho' as I'm something of a petrol-head and my favourite cars might not be elephantine Ute's but they are anything but fuel efficient .


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Wow, bjj, you got me.  I'm sorry I did not specifically state head on collisions when I made my remark about traffic deaths.  I am truly ashamed and will hang my head.  How can I ever atone for my misdeed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 3, 2010)

Being a little less snide would be a start ...


----------



## elder999 (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> . How can I ever atone for my misdeed.


 
Stop posting, please?

Or, at the very least, go back on your meds-okay? :lfao:


----------



## elder999 (Dec 3, 2010)

To be honest up front, these days my everyday driver is a Cadillac STS. V-8 gas hog monster. Love it. My Porsche is more fuel efficient, but not exactly what you'd call a gas sippper-plus, it's just not comfortable for my somewhat older 6'2" frame anymore.My bikes and some of my other cars are fuel efficient-but those cars are even less comfortable, and bikes? Let's jsut say that's no more about transportation than an MG is....:lol:

Rita, that's the wife, drives a truck. Let's not even go there.:lfao:

With all that said, the offshore oil reserves of the U.S. may be enough to fuel our needs for 11 years. Or less. No one's really sure-those are estimates, but 11 years seems to be the most optimistic estimate available today. It could be more, but that seems to be doubtful. If it is 11 years, then that begs the question -what does that even mean, exactly, "begs the question?" It's just one of those things we say that everyone understands even though it makes no sense....:lol: -anyway, it makes us ask the question of what we'd do when those 11 years were up? (11 years that are more like 30, when you include the time required to actually set up the rigs, do the drilling, extract ande transport the oil, but by then we'll all be riding bicycles...._

Anyway.....



Sukerkin said:


> As an aside, if someone can solve the problem of rectifying electricity down from billions of Hz to a useable frequency, we'll all be quids-in when it comes to power:
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/infrared-solar-panels-even-work-at-night-but-cant-output-energ/
> 
> How annoying is that?! To have a pretty good answer to the planet's consumer energy needs and not be able to access it because the frequency is too high!


 
I know about this. The problem shouldn't be insurmountable.....by the time my grandkids are having kids, maybe....:lfao: 
Comparisons of U.S nuclear power with Chernobyl are somewhat misleading-it was a different sort of technology, and one prone to exactly the kind of problem they encountered-especially from the deliberate "experiment" that led to it. Stupid, really. While the waste problem is a real issue, we'll have no choice in the years to come but to exploit this technology. 

As for offshore oil-or any oil-our first and best choice is to free ourselves of it as soon and as much as we can. It's a finite resource that will run out-regardless of where it comes from.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

11 years?

<folds tinfoil hat>


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Sukerkin, I agree, bjj and granfire could be more polite.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Sukerkin, I agree, bjj and granfire could be more polite.


You have no concept of how polite I have been! 

^_^


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Wow, bjj, you got me.  I'm sorry I did not specifically state head on collisions when I made my remark about traffic deaths.  I am truly ashamed and will hang my head.  How can I ever atone for my misdeed.


I forgive you.  Don't hang your head.  Instead, try writing what you actually mean, and then taking responsibility for your own words later.  All I have to react to are your words.  If you don't mean what you write, that makes it exceedingly difficult to communicate with you.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 3, 2010)

Folks,

Let's recall that, while we do allow a bit more heat here in The Study, the basic rules of MT still apply.  Keep it polite and drop the snideness and sniping.


----------



## billc (Dec 3, 2010)

Granfire, I believe I do.  I am grateful for your forgiveness bjj, my day is now complete and I can once again walk with my head held high.  The shame was so unbearable, thank you, thank you for your infinite patience and wisdom for one as lowly as myself bjj.  Yes, jks199, I agree, they probably could do a little less sniping.


----------



## granfire (Dec 3, 2010)

I am glad you believe something.


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 4, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Granfire,  I agree, they probably could do a little less sniping.



I like snipes =]

hehe. just a little joke. but I do. its why i call myself Blade :angel:

that kind of snipes is ok lol


----------



## granfire (Dec 4, 2010)

how did I ever get agreed with for being for less sniping? :xtrmshock:xtrmshock


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Dec 5, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I actually agree with this. Is anyone telling you to drive a small car?


 
Yes people are saying it all the time.
my understanding of granfires post was exactly that as well.


----------



## granfire (Dec 5, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Yes people are saying it all the time.
> my understanding of granfires post was exactly that as well.




small*er* cars, *more* fuel efficient.

Nobody said drive a dang Mini Cooper.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 5, 2010)

I drive a Prius. I'd drive a Tesla but can't afford it yet.


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2010)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Yes people are saying it all the time.
> my understanding of granfires post was exactly that as well.


Ultimately, I don't get it.  If you're driving a big car and it works for you, I don't care at all one way or the other.   

Personally, I think that as gas prices go up and the USA begins to get a sense of how much it really costs (gas has always been much more expensive everywhere else), creeping up towards $4 or even $5 per gallon in the next few years, everyone's going to be looking at ways to become more efficient.  But that said, fuel efficient doesn't necessarily equate to small cars anymore.

There are several issues that get mixed together when discussing cars.  For some reason "fuel efficient" tends to lead to a debate about small cars vs big cars.  It also tends to get framed in terms of tree huggers vs greedy capitalist pigs.  I don't necessarily agree.

For example, Nissan took a lot of heat for suggesting a leather upgrade for upholstery.  They have used recycled bottles and such for the interior, and in my opinion, you can tell.  I would probably have paid for leather seats.  It's durable, easy to maintain and I just like it.  I have no problem wearing leather, eating steak or using mink oil on my boots (although I'm a proponent of free range, etc).  I don't see animal rights being linked necessarily to my wanting to drive an EV.

In the same way, if I needed (or wanted) a truck, I'd look for fuel efficient trucks.


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2010)

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010...eles_auto_show_plug_in_hybrid_cars/index.html

Interesting slide show, highlighting some other efforts.  

Toyota's RAV4 EV could be a contender.  Tesla and Toyota have been partnering up and that could be very interesting considering Toyota's marketshare and Tesla's experience with the Roadster.

The Buick Lacrosse hybrid looks cool.  The Cadillac doesn't look like a small car, but I guess it's small for a Caddy.   But seating 4 and getting over 55 mpg/city isn't bad at all.  Infiniti's M hybrid is also a prelude to what I've heard is going to be an Infiniti M EV.  It would be cool to get an EV that is also well appointed.  As I said earlier, wanting to drive an EV doesn't necessarily mean I want to hug a tree or sit on recycled water bottles.


----------



## David43515 (Dec 6, 2010)

Not to beat a dead horse, but yeah smaller cars aren`t as safe because they have less mass and less space in the passenger compartment. Period. 

I spent 2 years as a volunteer fireman/EMT before we moved back to Japan. I`ve been to lots of accident scenes, and treated alot of patients. Unless they roll, which is more an effect of speed than size, bigger is better. Little cars with no mass fold up tighter at lower speeds so we have to spend more time cutting the car apart before we can get you out and on your way to hospital. Yes, I`ve seen vans and SUVs roll (vans roll much easier) and had to search fields and ditches to make sure we found all the bodies. But I`ve spent 3+ hours at a shot cutting up a small car wedged under a semi in order to unfold it enough get bodies out. My advice? Be a victim, not a body. Get a pick-up truck, a big one so you`ve got mass and crumple room. Then put a trailer hitch on the back and a winch on the front whether you ever see yourself using them or not you`re extending your crumple zone out. The force it takes to crush them is force that isn`t being absorbed by the passenger compartment.

And as a personal favor, please keep your cars free of clutter. There`s nothing like having an unconcious driver whom you can`t question in a car with a child-seat with no child in sight....but childrens` shoes sticking out from under a seam where a crumpled dashboard is shoved to the floor. The relief you feel when you find out it IS just shoes doesn`t make up for the dread you feel while you`re rushing around cutting the car frame and setting up hydrolics to try and lift the dash.

I`m all for solar, wind farms,hydro-electric, and nuclear power. I`d love to see more railroad passenger service. Higher efficiency appliances are great. But please don`t tell me smaller cars are just as safe. My own eyes are much easier to believe. As for drilling in the gulf, the Great Lakes, and ANWAR I`m all for it. Just make sure they`re following all the required saftey procedures.


----------



## billc (Dec 6, 2010)

thanks david, I had heard about the fact that smaller cars are not safer, that the lighter that a car is, the smaller a car is, the worse it is in a crash.  Not having the immediate facts and statistics at hand, and not planning on doing a dissertation on the subject, I appreciate your experience as bad as it was.  Thanks.


----------



## Steve (Dec 6, 2010)

David43515 said:


> Not to beat a dead horse, but yeah smaller cars aren`t as safe because they have less mass and less space in the passenger compartment. Period.
> 
> I spent 2 years as a volunteer fireman/EMT before we moved back to Japan. I`ve been to lots of accident scenes, and treated alot of patients. Unless they roll, which is more an effect of speed than size, bigger is better. Little cars with no mass fold up tighter at lower speeds so we have to spend more time cutting the car apart before we can get you out and on your way to hospital. Yes, I`ve seen vans and SUVs roll (vans roll much easier) and had to search fields and ditches to make sure we found all the bodies. But I`ve spent 3+ hours at a shot cutting up a small car wedged under a semi in order to unfold it enough get bodies out. My advice? Be a victim, not a body. Get a pick-up truck, a big one so you`ve got mass and crumple room. Then put a trailer hitch on the back and a winch on the front whether you ever see yourself using them or not you`re extending your crumple zone out. The force it takes to crush them is force that isn`t being absorbed by the passenger compartment.
> 
> ...


If you read through the thread, no one (that I'm aware of) has said that in a crash, a small car is as safe as a larger car.  What I did challenge is the assertion that small cars cause more crashes, which is a pretty stupid thing to say.  

I also said and still believe that the single most important safety feature in any car is an alert driver who is driving defensively.


----------



## billc (Dec 6, 2010)

I guess writing master that I could have more accurately written that they result in more traffic fatalities or some such description.  You should chill out.  It is a martial arts forum.  Try not to be so uptight.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 7, 2010)

This is a forum where we communicate. Clarity of thought is of prime importance for proper communication. We can only comment on what is written, not what was intended.


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> I guess writing master that I could have more accurately written that they result in more traffic fatalities or some such description. You should chill out. It is a martial arts forum. Try not to be so uptight.


I'll chill out when you take some responsibility for your own words.  It's a forum, where people communicate in writing.  Unless English is not your native lanaguage, I can only take you at your word, literally.  

There was misunderstanding and it needed to be cleared up.  David thought that people were suggesting smaller cars were as safe as larger cars in an accident.   I didn't write that, and I'm pretty sure that no one else did, too.


----------



## billc (Dec 7, 2010)

Yes, I understand that we are trying to solve the problems of world hunger, war, and the eternal conflict of which is better coke or pepsi, on this forum but Canuck, Bjj, I once again say chill out and get a grip.  If you don't like my posts, be adults, and ignore them.  Life is too short to deal with people like you Bjj.  Don't force me to wish you the the cornfield with Elder999.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 7, 2010)

Guys, be nice eh?  Thanks.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 7, 2010)

We are being nice. It's hard to have a discussion when halfway through one of the party says "it may have been what I wrote, but that's not what I meant". We can only debate what we read.

And I'd be more than fine to share the cornfield with somebody as intelligent as Elder999.


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> We are being nice. It's hard to have a discussion when halfway through one of the party says "it may have been what I wrote, but that's not what I meant". We can only debate what we read.
> 
> And I'd be more than fine to share the cornfield with somebody as intelligent as Elder999.


 qft


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Yes, I understand that we are trying to solve the problems of world hunger, war, and the eternal conflict of which is better coke or pepsi, on this forum but Canuck, Bjj, I once again say chill out and get a grip. If you don't like my posts, be adults, and ignore them. Life is too short to deal with people like you Bjj. Don't force me to wish you the the cornfield with Elder999.


Cornfield?  I can only hope.  

When you intentionally misrepresent a position, confuse an issue or say things that are unclear, I'll correct your mistakes or try to clear things up as I can.  Your intentional sarcasm and general snarky tone aren't helping you.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 7, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> We are being nice. It's hard to have a discussion when halfway through one of the party says "it may have been what I wrote, but that's not what I meant". We can only debate what we read.
> 
> And I'd be more than fine to share the cornfield with somebody as intelligent as Elder999.


 
 Thanks for the vote of confidence, you guys.....

"Cornfield?" more like the digital equivalent of a petulant child, with a full diaper and way past the age of potty-training, fingers in ears, shouting, _*"La, la, la! I can't hear you!"*_

meh.


----------



## billc (Dec 7, 2010)

Stevebjj, I have been polite.  I asked you to ignore my posts.  Now that I have been polite, I am now going to be helpful.  Bj, may I call you Bj, why all the anger.  I ask this as a freind here on martial talk, are you on steroids?  I ask this only because it might explain the anger.  Dude, if you are on that stuff, you have to stop.  It makes your you know whats get smaller.  Also, I have to say maybe you aren't cut out for Brazilian Jujutsu.  Apparently, all those elbows, and punches to the head haven't been good for you.  The choking off of your blood supply to your brain hasn't helped either.  Come on man, you are killing off brain cells you obviously cannot afford to lose.  I recommend you take Tai Chi instead.  It will relax you and the way it emphasizes good posture will help to.  With practice you will eventually be able to stand upright, which has the added benefit of getting your knuckles off the ground. 

While you wait to start your first tai chi class why don't you and your girlfriends rent "Eat, Pray, Love,"  curl each others hair and have a good cry.  That could help a lot as well.  

Please, stop reading my posts, they just annoy you and life is too short for that.  Don't you think.  I will await the moderators intervention.


----------



## granfire (Dec 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Stevebjj, I have been polite.  I asked you to ignore my posts.  Now that I have been polite, I am now going to be helpful.  Bj, may I call you Bj, why all the anger.  I ask this as a freind here on martial talk, are you on steroids?  I ask this only because it might explain the anger.  Dude, if you are on that stuff, you have to stop.  It makes your you know whats get smaller.  Also, I have to say maybe you aren't cut out for Brazilian Jujutsu.  Apparently, all those elbows, and punches to the head haven't been good for you.  The choking off of your blood supply to your brain hasn't helped either.  Come on man, you are killing off brain cells you obviously cannot afford to lose.  I recommend you take Tai Chi instead.  It will relax you and the way it emphasizes good posture will help to.  With practice you will eventually be able to stand upright, which has the added benefit of getting your knuckles off the ground.
> 
> While you wait to start your first tai chi class why don't you and your girlfriends rent "Eat, Pray, Love,"  curl each others hair and have a good cry.  That could help a lot as well.
> 
> Please, stop reading my posts, they just annoy you and life is too short for that.  Don't you think.  I will await the moderators intervention.




Inappropriate.


----------



## Steve (Dec 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Stevebjj, I have been polite.  I asked you to ignore my posts.  Now that I have been polite, I am now going to be helpful.  Bj, may I call you Bj, why all the anger.  I ask this as a freind here on martial talk, are you on steroids?  I ask this only because it might explain the anger.  Dude, if you are on that stuff, you have to stop.  It makes your you know whats get smaller.  Also, I have to say maybe you aren't cut out for Brazilian Jujutsu.  Apparently, all those elbows, and punches to the head haven't been good for you.  The choking off of your blood supply to your brain hasn't helped either.  Come on man, you are killing off brain cells you obviously cannot afford to lose.  I recommend you take Tai Chi instead.  It will relax you and the way it emphasizes good posture will help to.  With practice you will eventually be able to stand upright, which has the added benefit of getting your knuckles off the ground.
> 
> While you wait to start your first tai chi class why don't you and your girlfriends rent "Eat, Pray, Love,"  curl each others hair and have a good cry.  That could help a lot as well.
> 
> Please, stop reading my posts, they just annoy you and life is too short for that.  Don't you think.  I will await the moderators intervention.


  you think I'm angry with you?  that's funny.
As for being cut out for BJJ, I'm sure you're right.  You are welcome to come train with us anytime, but I'd recommend leaving the sarcasm at the door.  Whether you agree or not, most people consider that rude.


----------



## elder999 (Dec 7, 2010)

billcihak said:


> Stevebjj, I have been polite. I asked you to ignore my posts. Now that I have been polite, I am now going to be helpful. Bj, may I call you Bj, why all the anger. I ask this as a freind here on martial talk, are you on steroids? I ask this only because it might explain the anger. Dude, if you are on that stuff, you have to stop. It makes your you know whats get smaller. Also, I have to say maybe you aren't cut out for Brazilian Jujutsu. Apparently, all those elbows, and punches to the head haven't been good for you. The choking off of your blood supply to your brain hasn't helped either. Come on man, you are killing off brain cells you obviously cannot afford to lose. I recommend you take Tai Chi instead. It will relax you and the way it emphasizes good posture will help to. With practice you will eventually be able to stand upright, which has the added benefit of getting your knuckles off the ground.
> 
> While you wait to start your first tai chi class why don't you and your girlfriends rent "Eat, Pray, Love," curl each others hair and have a good cry. That could kkhelp a lot as well.
> 
> Please, stop reading my posts, they just annoy you and life is too short for that. Don't you think. I will await the moderators Intervention.


 
....and now he reaches into that diaper, and smears all over the walls......
......and *himself!* :lfao:


----------



## MJS (Dec 7, 2010)

Folks,

Can we stop with the shots back and forth please.  Use the ignore feature if you dont want to see someones posts.


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 7, 2010)

small cars, big cars. i don't care. Just make em more environmentally friendly. :angel:


----------



## billc (Dec 7, 2010)

If they made an electiric car that had the same properties that a gas fueled car has, at the same price range then they would fly out of the dealerships.  The technology isn't there yet and won't be for a long time.  I'm all for any technology that is more efficient.  If we could harvest candy canes and use them for fuel that would be fine by me.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2010)

We have electric cars, petrol and diesel cars and also gas cars run on LPG which is very cheap. We even have cars can run on either petrol or gas.

Here I think all cars would be described by Americans as small, if we had the huge cars Americans had we'd run out of road very quickly lol! I think the EU standards for car safety are very stringent, certainly small cars don't seem any less safe than their laeger cousins, here at least but as I said our 'big' cars aren't as big as American cars. Cars over a certain age have to be tested every year and emissions are one of the things they check.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> small cars, big cars. i don't care. Just make em more environmentally friendly. :angel:


It seems so simple.  Doesn't it? 



billcihak said:


> If they made an electiric car that had the same properties that a gas fueled car has, at the same price range then they would fly out of the dealerships.  The technology isn't there yet and won't be for a long time.  I'm all for any technology that is more efficient.  If we could harvest candy canes and use them for fuel that would be fine by me.


Once again, you're betraying your bias through your sarcasm.  You seem to like Yahoo.  Do some research on the subject.  I think that if you do, you'll be genuinely surprised at what's out there.  I'd recommend checking out the documentary on the EV1 called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" about an electric car produced by GM as a start.  Very interesting story there.

Alternative drivetrains have been around for a long time, but R&D has been suppressed and the collusion at work within the automotive industry is very well documented.  As long as there's money to be made with the ICE, the auto industry has no incentive to spend any money developing new technologies.  You can't tell me that we can't improve in some significant way over the internal combustion engine running much as it did when invented in the 1860s.  Think about the improvements we've made in every single area of our lives since the Civil War.  I don't buy it.  We're a smart, industrious bunch of mammals and we're still using the internal combustion engine.  



Tez3 said:


> We have electric cars, petrol and diesel cars and also gas cars run on LPG which is very cheap. We even have cars can run on either petrol or gas.
> 
> Here I think all cars would be described by Americans as small, if we had the huge cars Americans had we'd run out of road very quickly lol! I think the EU standards for car safety are very stringent, certainly small cars don't seem any less safe than their laeger cousins, here at least but as I said our 'big' cars aren't as big as American cars. Cars over a certain age have to be tested every year and emissions are one of the things they check.


Tez, I think you've touched on an important distinction.  We have roads that are nice and wide and can accomodate larger vehicles.  Small cars are only more dangerous in a collision as a result of basic physics.  If you're in a 2500 lbs car and you're hit by an 8000 lbs truck, it's not going to go well for you.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve, we have several motorways, dual carriageways (not sure what you call them) but a huge amount of country roads which are actually lanes, these are single lanes which have 'passing places' dotted along them whenever possible. Up here in Yorkshire they have dry stone walls either side, further south it's hedges. 
Our biggest trucks still aren't as big as yours, our roads simply wouldn't accomodate them. In Europe, which is probably more akin to America in terms of roads, the trucks are bigger and pull equally big trailers, we can't have that here, there'd be no room to move lol.
Our towns and cities were built in a time when horses and at most horses and carts were the traffic so there's little room to drive large cars. One of the reasons we have so many one way systems is to allow traffic to drive through as many streets aren't wide enough for two way traffice. Most big cities are managed when rebuilding and renovating have managed to make the roads wider.
We have a very busy motorway that runs past us, the A1(M), it was originally Watling Road built by the Romans but it's still only has two lanes either side. some parts are being widened to three lanes per side though but it's a long job.
Of course any car being hit by a truck is going to have a bad time but the strength of the car's 'carcass' is going to have a big effect on safety.

European cars are built differently than American cars, even the Japanese and Korean imports are different from the same name models you have. They are different because of the road conditions we have. In Europe we have very fast motorways, some in Germany have no speed limits on them, other countries have a much higher limit than yourselves.
I'm not a 'car' person lol so this may be a daft question but do you have diesel run cars as well as petrol? I've only ever heard Americans call what they fill their cars up with as 'gas'.


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Steve, we have several motorways, dual carriageways (not sure what you call them) but a huge amount of country roads which are actually lanes, these are single lanes which have 'passing places' dotted along them whenever possible. Up here in Yorkshire they have dry stone walls either side, further south it's hedges.
> Our biggest trucks still aren't as big as yours, our roads simply wouldn't accomodate them. In Europe, which is probably more akin to America in terms of roads, the trucks are bigger and pull equally big trailers, we can't have that here, there'd be no room to move lol.
> Our towns and cities were built in a time when horses and at most horses and carts were the traffic so there's little room to drive large cars. One of the reasons we have so many one way systems is to allow traffic to drive through as many streets aren't wide enough for two way traffice. Most big cities are managed when rebuilding and renovating have managed to make the roads wider.
> We have a very busy motorway that runs past us, the A1(M), it was originally Watling Road built by the Romans but it's still only has two lanes either side. some parts are being widened to three lanes per side though but it's a long job.
> ...


  I think we agree about the roads.  It's been a few years, but what you're describing is what I remember, too.  I lived in Germany for 2 years and while the autobahn was nice and wide, around where I lived the roads were narrow and REALLY old.   Anyway, all that to say that I think we're on the same page.

For the gas/petrol thing, I don't think I understand the difference.  We typically run gasoline or diesel and, at least in my family, only use the term "petrol" when we're trying to be funny with the kids.  Audi and VW make great turbo diesels that are very popular, and most big trucks run on diesel.  City busses, taxis and such are increasingly running on alternative fuels such as natural gas, but that's not something that the average commuter can afford.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> I think we agree about the roads. It's been a few years, but what you're describing is what I remember, too. I lived in Germany for 2 years and while the autobahn was nice and wide, around where I lived the roads were narrow and REALLY old.  Anyway, all that to say that I think we're on the same page.
> 
> For the gas/petrol thing, I don't think I understand the difference. We typically run gasoline or diesel and, at least in my family, only use the term "petrol" when we're trying to be funny with the kids. Audi and VW make great turbo diesels that are very popular, and most big trucks run on diesel. City busses, taxis and such are increasingly running on alternative fuels such as natural gas, but that's not something that the average commuter can afford.


 
We have a lot of people converting their cars to 'dual fuel', we're thinking about it at the moment, if only we could dig the car out of the snow lol.

http://www.lpg-vehicles.co.uk/lpg_conversions/lpg_vehicle_conversion.htm


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 8, 2010)

NA does not have as many diesel as Europe. One of the reason is that emissions are calculated as Parts Per Million. On that level, diesel is dirtier than petrol. But if you measure as Parts Per Kilometre (or mile), then the greater fuel efficiency of Diesel makes the fuel cleaner.


----------



## granfire (Dec 8, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> NA does not have as many diesel as Europe. One of the reason is that emissions are calculated as Parts Per Million. On that level, diesel is dirtier than petrol. But if you measure as Parts Per Kilometre (or mile), then the greater fuel efficiency of Diesel makes the fuel cleaner.



'diesel' cars can be converted with little effort to burn vegetable oils or bio diesel, made from old frying oil...


----------



## Steve (Dec 8, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> NA does not have as many diesel as Europe. One of the reason is that emissions are calculated as Parts Per Million. On that level, diesel is dirtier than petrol. But if you measure as Parts Per Kilometre (or mile), then the greater fuel efficiency of Diesel makes the fuel cleaner.


Only for privately owned vehicles.   Just about every auto on the road in the USA that has more than 2 axles runs on a diesel, from semi's to heavy machinery.   

The only reason for this, though, is the way that gasoline is subsidized.  We're only now beginning to approach the actual cost of gasoline in most of the World.  As gasoline prices continue to go up, the extra expense of a TDI will become much more worthwhile.


----------



## WC_lun (Dec 9, 2010)

Diesel fuel also ignites at a higher temprature, which means a higher compression ratio in diesel engines.  This in turn creates a higher, more effecient energy output, which is why diesel is used in vehicles that haul stuff.  Gasoline is lighter and has a quicker flash point so it doesn't take as heavy equipment to operate a gasoline engine as a diesel.  This means gasoline engine vehicles are usually a lot lighter.  Lighter is generally good when talking about driver response and feedback in a passenger/sport car.


----------



## granfire (Dec 9, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> The only reason for this, though, is the way that gasoline is subsidized.  We're only now beginning to approach the actual cost of gasoline in most of the World.  As gasoline prices continue to go up, the extra expense of a TDI will become much more worthwhile.


Subsidized? Scary thought considering that most of the price at the pump is taxes...


----------



## Steve (Dec 9, 2010)

granfire said:


> Subsidized? Scary thought considering that most of the price at the pump is taxes...


Subsidized is the wrong word.  Controlled?  Manipulated?    The entire operation is a racket.  The prices we pay in America are a balance between apathy and outrage.  When gas prices hit $3/gallon there was outrage... until the prices miraculously went back down to just over $2/gallon.  But over the last couple of years, they creeped right back up and over $3 without any kind of issue at all.

It'll be the same when it goes to $4/gallon.  It'll hit that mark to set the bar, then dip back down before slowly creeping back up and over $4 for good.


----------



## granfire (Dec 9, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> Subsidized is the wrong word.  Controlled?  Manipulated?    The entire operation is a racket.  The prices we pay in America are a balance between apathy and outrage.  When gas prices hit $3/gallon there was outrage... until the prices miraculously went back down to just over $2/gallon.  But over the last couple of years, they creeped right back up and over $3 without any kind of issue at all.
> 
> It'll be the same when it goes to $4/gallon.  It'll hit that mark to set the bar, then dip back down before slowly creeping back up and over $4 for good.



Now there I agree with you! 
Makes the mob look like boy scouts.

Pre Katrina the gas was below 1,50 around here, shot up to nearly 4 bucks after, that was the only thankgsgiving I noticed the price of gas going _down_. 
But yeah, sun comes out, gas goes up. Holiday, yep up it goes. 

I heard in Germany it's totally random...like they throw a dart at a map. naturally rural areas, where you actually NEED that car, it's a bit higher...

4 out of the 5 top conglomerates in business were oil companies...not sure if BP dropped out yet, bringing the UK down with it...
(the 5th was Walmart...)


----------



## Blade96 (Dec 10, 2010)

stevebjj said:


> It seems so simple.  Doesn't it?



Yep.

But I know its not. Wish it was though.


----------

