In message <00bf01bf03e8$27545f00$69ac10cb at rcollins>, rc-am
<rcollins at netlink.com.au> writes
>Rakesh wrote:
>
>> Interesting how 'demographic' theories can come back into vogue as
>fundamental explanations for various social phenomena. <
>
>i wouldn't say interesting. routine and offensive.
>
>Angela
Want an acceptable formula for 'too many people'? Try 'too many cars'. That neat sublimation of your anti-mass intent will disguise the misanthropic meaning, just enough to allow you to communicate your hatred of working people to your fellows.
In message <Pine.PMDF.3.96.990920202822.538977472A-
100000 at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU>, Dennis R Redmond
<dredmond at OREGON.UOREGON.EDU> writes
>*Click*. Earth to Jim: do you copy. *Click*. Cars suck. Really, they do.
>They're energy-guzzling, noise-producing, swallow up the landscape with
>asphalt and pavement, make cities unliveable, turn highways into killing
>fields.
Translation: "Working people suck. Really they do. They're energy- guzzling, noise-producing, swallow up the landscape, make cities unliveable, turn highways into killing fields."
Dennis get a grip. Your pathological hatred of car drivers has blinded you to the obvious. There would not be highways - or even cities as we know them - without cars.
Let me ask you, I mean, seriously, I am asking you, do you drive?
You don't have to.
>Their CO2 emissions are slowly but surely turning the atmosphere
>into a boiling pudding. Particulates, oil spills and whatnot create a
>hell's broth of toxic chemicals, all of which merrily bioaccumulate and
>give Essex man Esso cancer.
This religious belief of yours is clearly not susceptible to any evidence to the contrary. Car emissions have been cleaned up. With a new car it would take you days to kill yourself with a hose attached to the exhaust. The reason that your belief in pollution persists after the problem has been solved is that the real pollution you are addressing, as the above passage so clearly demonstrates is the pollution of your green and pleasant land by workers, who insist on their right to have a drive in it of a Sunday.
>Mass transit is cleaner, cheaper, safer, and
>saner.
Mass transit is an addition, not a replacement for the car. All research shows that cheaper trains do not reduce car use. People want their cars, even if you do not want them to want them.
In message <000f01bf03fd$4f9d95c0$0470c4d0 at wideye>, alex lantsberg
<wideye at ziplink.net> writes
>
>the classist argument only goes so far when one considers the costs of a car
>based society.
Amazing, that you cannot hear the Gradgrind austerity in your own comments. Keep the costs down! the workers are consuming too much! More? What do you mean more, boy? From whose perspective are the funds running out? From the perspective of the ruling class, for whom all expenditure on working class consumption is a waste.
>
>the campaign for car free cities goes beyond simply doing away with the car.
>the redesign of cities
>to a more human scale, with adequate public transport, would make the doing
>away
>of cars a feasible
>option for many. for those who need to rely on mechanized transport, car
>sharing or shuttle travel
>can be a real option. the point is that the car is a horrible thing to
>organize
>a transportation
>system around.
Horrid horrid car! I don't share your East European vision of social progress, where some fat controller dictates all possible movements on his railway timetable. But more to the point, nor does anyone else in their actions. If you don't like car travel, don't do it. Nobody is making you. Take the bus, or cycle (I do). But car travel is increasing by the hour, because it is closest to what people need in the narrow confines allowed to them.
You should really listen to yourself. The psychological meaning of what you are saying is entirely directed at car-users, who you think of as horrible.
In message <14310.60380.72302.170233 at lisa.zopyra.com>, William S. Lear
<rael at zopyra.com> writes
>God you are awful sometimes, Jim. What is curious is how you can
>seriously pose such questions.
Nothing like religious dogma...
In message <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909201443040.9453-100000 at uhunix1>, Stephen E Philion <philion at hawaii.edu> writes
>I think perhaps James is relying on the common senseical working class
>response to questions like, "Would you like to own a nice new car?"...But
>if they are asked if they would like efficient, comfortable, and cheap
>public transportation, even those who think of themeselves as 'middle
>class' will be quite interested in the idea.
Enrique gave the definitive answer to this. But I'm curious, why do you see trains and buses on the one hand, and cars on the other as mutually exclusive? It's like thinking that just because there is cinema there will be no theatre. Do you really imagine that a drop in fares and a better timetable will make people think, oh, yes, now I don't need my car. They just aren't the same activity at all. -- Jim heartfield