PDA

View Full Version : Congrats tree huggers on being a hypocrite!


MT Mike
July 12th, 2008, 08:31
A good friend of mine was suckered in by the "Hybrid" sales hype and was just about to buy one when I sent her a bunch of articles about why "Hybrids" are worse for the environment than any other vehicle. The one article that really got her attention was this (http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/print_item.asp?NewsID=188) one. So for all of you who know some tree hugger driving around in a future toxic waste dump, feel free to pass that on to them. The facts should really make them feel all warm and fuzzy! :roflmao:

MisterFubar
July 12th, 2008, 08:46
We almost bought the wife a Civic hybrid when we bought the 06 she had. I knew in the big picture they polluted more, but I could give a damn less if it saved me at the pump. Couldn't get quite a good enough deal on it so we didn't end up getting it.

mountainpoo
July 12th, 2008, 09:28
just buy a nice 4banger nissan altima or something and you do just fine for your pocket and the environment

JNickel101
July 12th, 2008, 09:31
Good article, had no idea that my namesake was so polluting....

hmmm...maybe I'm named for the coin......LOL

90Blue_XJ
July 12th, 2008, 10:40
Good article, had no idea that my namesake was so polluting....
hmmm...maybe I'm named for the coin......LOL

Weren't they originally made of nickel too? Maybe the tern "plug nickel" applies?

BTW Thanks for the article Mike!!

gradon
July 12th, 2008, 10:45
I thought it was cause you're a cheap bastid or those skimp bags you're slingin.

sherman08
July 12th, 2008, 11:15
Ive found myself very dissapointed about the milage coming from the hybrids, my grandpa owns a Prius and he uses it to deliver the old folks in the community lunch. He sais that he is only makin like 36 to 37 a gallon. Yes this is all city, and stop and go driving, but isn't that really the conditions the prius was ment to accell in? sorry just ranting, but ive seen 90's model Neons get better MPG's than that, seems like a waist of money to me.

DrMoab
July 12th, 2008, 12:02
but ive seen 90's model Neons get better MPG's than that, seems like a waist of money to me.
Not around the city you haven't

GSequoia
July 12th, 2008, 12:29
Not around the city you haven't

No shit.

My mom somehow manages to get under 20 in her Neon, of course she only does short city trips and has always driven with an on/off throttle but damn!

(I got 32 when driving it to/from work, not entirely highway and not entirely city)

tbburg
July 12th, 2008, 16:11
Lesson on how to get REALLY bad mileage out of anything:

When the light turns green, stand on the gas.
when the car in front doesn't move fast enough, stand on the brake.
In moving traffic, watch the car in front of you(no further ahead)
When it slows down, don't let off the gas until it's within 20 feet.
Then stand on the brake.
On the highway, drive right up on the car in front of you, as fast as you can.
Hit the brakes to keep from hitting it.
When you slow down, stand on the gas again(because now you're going to slow)
If there is someone in front of you, speed up to pass them, then slow back down until they are on you bumper, then give it a shot of gas to speed up.
Then slow back down again(repeat)

Follow these directions rigorously, and you too can get under 20mpg in anything! As an added bonus, you will need new brakes every 10.000 miles!


Seriously, pay attention. It's amazing how many people drive like this.

Hackmeister
July 12th, 2008, 17:24
You just summed up about 90% of all drivers in Boston!

Ray H
July 12th, 2008, 17:30
You just summed up about 90% of all drivers in Boston!

its my experience thats about 90% of the drivers in the U.S.
I used to judge how smart people are with their money by whether or not they've got a cigarette hanging from their mouth, now I judge them by how they drive. Most fail.

SBrad001
July 12th, 2008, 17:31
Hybrids are definitely one of my pet peeves. I did a life cycle analysis of hybrid cars last year. When I was done, I had a real eye opener.

Here are some of my findings.

On a per unit of energy needed for production alone, a hybrid will consumer 35 times more energy in it's production than a Hummer H1. One car needs 35 TIMES MORE ENERGY TO BE BUILT THAN ONE FRICKING HUMMER.

A Hummer is infinitely more recyclable than a hybrid. With a hybrid you have battery replacement every 4 to 7 years and that requires hazardous waste treatment in order to recycle those batteries.

But wait there's more. Do you guys have any idea of how much toxic waste is produced in electronic and battery manufacturing? I just don't want to go there. It will just take me too long to write all this shite I down have against hybrids.

Do yourself a favor and purchase a Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris. Half the cost and the same mileage with out the guilt of polluting more.

Dustin_Z
July 12th, 2008, 17:33
Arkansas too!!

Ray H
July 12th, 2008, 17:41
Hybrids are definitely one of my pet peeves. I did a life cycle analysis of hybrid cars last year. When I was done, I had a real eye opener.



Mine too.
A couple years ago when we were shopping for an economy car I didnt even consider getting a hybrid. We ended up with a little Kia that cost $12000 with options, has 100000 mile warranty and gets 34 MPG. Its worked out pretty good.

SBrad001
July 12th, 2008, 17:45
Mine too.
A couple years ago when we were shopping for an economy car I didnt even consider getting a hybred. We ended up with a little Kia that cost $12000 with options, has 100000 mile warranty and gets 34 MPG. Its worked out pretty good.

So you saved $10000 over the cost of a hybrid, get almost the same mileage, and pollute less? How stupid are these people buying these damned hybrids?

Ok, I'm done ranting.

NW-ZJ-SCOTT
July 12th, 2008, 17:54
Through a study by CNW Marketing called “Dust to Dust,” the total combined energy is taken from all the electrical, fuel, transportation, materials (metal, plastic, etc) and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetime of a vehicle. The Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile driven over a lifetime of 100,000 miles - the expected lifespan of the Hybrid.
The Hummer, on the other hand, costs a more fiscal $1.95 per mile to put on the road over an expected lifetime of 300,000 miles. That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use less combined energy doing it.


HAHAHA YEAH RIGHT!

I work for a cab company, we have 6 Prius's, 3 of witch have 170k+ Original drive train, they are 2005 models.

They will easily make it to 300k

Ray H
July 12th, 2008, 17:54
So you saved $10000 over the cost of a hybrid, get almost the same mileage, and pollute less? How stupid are these people buying these damned hybrids?

Ok, I'm done ranting.

Those are people that do things just to impress other people just like the guy who pays $5000 more for an Escalade instead of getting a loaded Tahoe all so they can show off a nice pretty gold Cadillac badge.

Ray H
July 12th, 2008, 17:56
HAHAHA YEAH RIGHT!

I work for a cab company, we have 6 Prius's, 3 of witch have 170k+ Original drive train, they are 2005 models.

They will easily make it to 300k
Are you considering the batteries as part of the drivetrain?

NW-ZJ-SCOTT
July 12th, 2008, 18:12
Are you considering the batteries as part of the drivetrain?Yeah! I know they are original. These cars were bought threw auction with around 40k miles. i deal with the Maintenance requests every day, They rarely need anything... I am not "Siding" with anyone in this. but from my experience with these cars, that report is making them out to be Unreliable, Short-lived Cars. and i have to disagree.

Ray H
July 12th, 2008, 18:15
Yeah! I know they are original. These cars were bought threw auction with around 40k miles. i deal with the Maintenance requests every day, They rarely need anything... I am not "Siding" with anyone in this. but from my experience with these cars, that report is making them out to be Unreliable, Short-lived Cars. and i have to disagree.

I guess the thing with the batteries isnt as much mileage but age. Most car batteries have called it quites long before 170000 miles because by the time they have that many miles, they are also 10 years old.

NW-ZJ-SCOTT
July 12th, 2008, 18:27
I guess the thing with the batteries isnt as much mileage but age. Most car batteries have called it quites long before 170000 miles because by the time they have that many miles, they are also 10 years old.
It's possible. i cant predict 5 years down the road. but by that time they will all be well over 500k miles. most of Our crown vic's are about 4-8 years old. most have 500k on them. Alot of transmissions replaced but original motors for the most part.

The prius is a drivers car. if your not going to drive them. dont buy them. stick to a civic.

Beej
July 12th, 2008, 20:18
Although I am by no means defending hybrids, which I also think are stupid, that article is filled with bullsh*t. Just the crap on Sudbury alone is crap, sure it was like that in the 50's but not so much so today...

Darky
July 12th, 2008, 20:38
I was trying to find an article I just read a couple days ago on MSN.com's Slate magazine refuting that article. I admit the first time I read it I was sold too. I hate Priuses and think most of the people buying them do it just to feel good and show everyone else how they're saving the world. I can't tell you how many I see shoot by me on the highway at 80-90 mph meaning the hybrid is running on purely gas and the engine is having to run pretty hard. They only benefit from aerodynamics and low rolling resistance tires at that point. But, the article on Slate pointed out a lot of flaws and just plain misleading info in it.

98XJSport
July 13th, 2008, 06:42
Google Earth Copper Cliff, Ontario to see the plant and the area around it...

Wallymander
July 13th, 2008, 09:19
I think the technology is neat, and its good that its been made production, itll take years before theres an affordable reason to buy one, my issue is the fact that its being hyped, and marketed as "saving the environment". Blah blah...
petrol cars are not going to kill any dang trees.as a matter of fact they have been running so clean and efficient, its a shame to now try to ditch them all together. Its more of a statement than anything, owning a car made by anyone with a little leafy green emblem on the rear of it.
If hybrids had been designed and sold under the premise of them being "efficient" and money saving alone, minus the geo-friendly nonsense they are packaged with, it would be a different story.
I believe in being a good steward of the land, being an off roader, i dont go trying to destroy things, and i take out what i took in with me,as far as refuse.
I love a clean environment as much as the next person. But financing an expensive new, not-yet-demonized technology (the press will eventually find something to say about them, give it time) under the guise of "saving some fish, trees, or other naturally occuring element of the earth is a poor economic decision.
Besides the Prius is the most feminine vehicle ive seen, (in the states anyway) id rather drive a geo metro. I see them on the freeways here in Houston all the time doing 65 mph, and getting passed over and over and over,.........allmost a traffic hazard, noone goes 65 on the interstate. And we have to slow down and change lanes for these things.
Mabye thats why the push for the 55 MPH speed limit (omfg) is being reinstated, to protect the poor little hybrids that cant keep up..... Mabye not, its a bad idea all over.

jpcherokeekid
July 13th, 2008, 09:39
the really sad thing is my jeep just passed smog with zero parts per million on both hydrocarbons and co2 emissions. id really like to see what these new hybrids emissions really are when a jeep thats 14 years old doesnt polute like all the eviros claim they do. im all for having a clean environment but most of these environmentalists need a good a$$ woopinHasta

Ray H
July 13th, 2008, 09:53
Really we are just trying to put off the inevitable. The world population of people will nearly double in the next 70 years. Every one of those people will be users and polluters to some extent. This planet is screwed no matter what we do unless people start dieing off faster than they are born.
If people were really interested in being "green" they would stop having babies. That sounds harsh but thats the only real solution to saving the planet. Anything short of that and the greenies are just pissing in the wind.

DrMoab
July 13th, 2008, 12:49
This planet is screwed no matter what we do unless people start dieing off faster than they are born.

I'm all for that. We can start by killing the tree huggers. Then go after India and China

SBrad001
July 13th, 2008, 13:45
the really sad thing is my jeep just passed smog with zero parts per million on both hydrocarbons and co2 emissions. id really like to see what these new hybrids emissions really are when a jeep thats 14 years old doesnt polute like all the eviros claim they do. im all for having a clean environment but most of these environmentalists need a good a$$ woopinHasta


Your jeep couldn't have past with 0 part per million CO2, but it could have past with 0 part per million CO(carbon monoxide).

5-90
July 13th, 2008, 13:55
Really we are just trying to put off the inevitable. The world population of people will nearly double in the next 70 years. Every one of those people will be users and polluters to some extent. This planet is screwed no matter what we do unless people start dieing off faster than they are born.
If people were really interested in being "green" they would stop having babies. That sounds harsh but thats the only real solution to saving the planet. Anything short of that and the greenies are just pissing in the wind.

It's funny - but I've been saying much the same thing for years.

But I usually get denounced as "extremist" and told I should change my opinion.

But I don't.

JNickel101
July 13th, 2008, 14:00
Brady, b/c I'm too lazy to look it up...and you're some sort of chemist who can probably recite this from memory :D

Hydrocarbons = methane/ethane?

Combustion of gasoline = CO2, CO, Hydrocarbons, NOx(?)

Cat Converter = helps eliminate NOx and...?

JNickel101
July 13th, 2008, 14:01
It's funny - but I've been saying much the same thing for years.

But I usually get denounced as "extremist" and told I should change my opinion.

But I don't.

So where do we start....firebomb Africa? China? India?

:flame: :flame: :flame: ;)



Actually, didnt China kinda shoot itself in the foot by killing off all the baby girls? Aren't they severely imbalanced as far as male/female ratios now?

5-90
July 13th, 2008, 14:21
Brady, b/c I'm too lazy to look it up...and you're some sort of chemist who can probably recite this from memory :D

Hydrocarbons = methane/ethane?

Combustion of gasoline = CO2, CO, Hydrocarbons, NOx(?)

Cat Converter = helps eliminate NOx and...?

Hydrocarbons - compounds of naught but hydrogen and carbon, methane and ethane being good examples (also acetylene, propane, butane, ... Their numbers are legion.)

Compleat combustion of hydrocarbons in air yields carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H20,) with the possibility of yielding oxides of nitrogen (NOx) as a byproduct if temperatures are high enough (~1600-1800*F, IIRC.)

Incompleat combustion of hydrocarbons in air yields CO2, H2O, and a portion of carbon monoxide (CO.) This is either due to insufficient temperature at time of combustion (depends on hydrocarbon being burned) and availability of oxygen (insufficient oxygen = CO production.)

The catalytic converter is usually a three-step device now. It first causes the combustion of any leftover hydrocarbons in the exhaust stream, reducing HC emissions (a far greater "greenhouse gas" than CO2.) Then, it reduces NOx to N2 and O2, which cuts down on NOx emissions (a component of acid rain.) Last, it then further oxidises CO into CO2 (CO can be considered a "fuel" in a strict sense, since it can still be combusted.) I've explained how haemoglobin in blood (the part that carried oxygen and makes it red - a complex organometallic form of rust) has a greater affinity for CO than for O2 - and that's why CO poisoning (properly called "asphyxia") kills.

Part of the problem is that gasoline isn't a pure hydrocarbon - and it never really has been. Gasoline is a mix of mid-weight hydrocarbons (the C6-C10 series, saturated and unsaturated, as I recall,) and the boatload of additives and oxygenates that the EPA and CalEPA mandates (simplest oxygenates are alcohols - which are hydrocarbons where one -H is replaced with a -OH radical - making them "slightly pre-oxygenated" hydrocarbons. Then we get into ethers and the like - which are more highly oxygenated, and more highly volatile. "Starting fluid" is a mix of ethyl ether and heptane - heptane is the hydrocarbon that was used as a definition of zero on the octane scale.)

Diesel is similar - it just uses a higher "section" of hydrocarbons (C12-C16 or so, I think?) and isn't ignited by a spark, but by heat of compression.

Are you sure you want to get into this, or have you had enough now? I'd have to dig out notes to go any deeper...

JNickel101
July 13th, 2008, 14:25
Damn you....my head hurts. I've been reading about electronic warfare all day, now I try and switch to this and....yeah...neurons are tired.

:D thanks though!

SBrad001
July 13th, 2008, 14:27
Brady, b/c I'm too lazy to look it up...and you're some sort of chemist who can probably recite this from memory :D

Hydrocarbons = methane/ethane?

Combustion of gasoline = CO2, CO, Hydrocarbons, NOx(?)

Cat Converter = helps eliminate NOx and...?

1. Yes, those are hydrocarbons along with gasoline and diesel. Pretty much any derivative of crude oil is considered a hydrocarbon.

2. Ideally, gasoline combustion with yield only Carbon Dioxide(CO2) and water. But in the real world, gasoline combustion also produces NOx. And due to in complete combustion, some Carbon Monoxide(CO) can be formed. CO is usually formed when a vehicle is running 'rich'.

3. Catalytic converters are the the greatest tech in reducing harmful tail pipe emissions that lead to smog and a good catalytic converter can converter nearly 100% of Nitrogen Oxides( NO, NO2 = NOx) and Carbon Monoxide gases into harmless gases. Two stage Catalytic converters NOx, and Carbon Monoxide(CO) into Nitrogen gas and Carbon Dioxide(CO2). But they are pretty useless against hydrocarbon emissions. Your car's computer or a good tune up are the best ways to fight hydrocarbon emissions.


. . . and 4. Yes. Yes I can recite all this crap from memory. . . . :P

JNickel101
July 13th, 2008, 14:36
3. So the fact that I got two brand new pre-cats (farking $$$) and a new "main" cat on my XJ means I'm probably doing pretty well in the emissions department....

NM doesnt have emissions testing (at least in the south)...I'd be curious what my results would be.

SBrad001
July 13th, 2008, 14:46
3. So the fact that I got two brand new pre-cats (farking $$$) and a new "main" cat on my XJ means I'm probably doing pretty well in the emissions department....

NM doesnt have emissions testing (at least in the south)...I'd be curious what my results would be.

You should be fine in the emissions department.

Really, the biggest concerns for emissions are smog formation and carbon monoxide poison. Those NOx gases are key components in Ozone(O3) formation and carbon monoxide is a deadly gas. Both Ozone and carbon monoxide are extremely harmful to human health in very small amounts(part per billion levels). So that's why we want to control those emissions.

Ray H
July 13th, 2008, 14:58
It's funny - but I've been saying much the same thing for years.

But I usually get denounced as "extremist" and told I should change my opinion.

But I don't.

I dont understand why this is such a hard thing for most people to understand. I dont think we need to intentionally kill people off (unless you like that sort of thing). Nature will eventually do the job. At some point, when the earth can no longer support the human species, there will be enough deceases and homosexuality and killing to put things back in check. it'll happen automatically whether we want it to or not. It's already starting, but it will get worse before it gets better. Im going to enjoy myself and not worry too much about it because its out of my hands.

JNickel101
July 13th, 2008, 15:10
I'm thinking all three of those things (or at least 2 of 3) will lead to the demise of Africa, the Middle East and China....

Maybe I just like watching stuff blow up too much...:dunno:

5-90
July 13th, 2008, 15:57
I dont understand why this is such a hard thing for most people to understand. I dont think we need to intentionally kill people off (unless you like that sort of thing). Nature will eventually do the job. At some point, when the earth can no longer support the human species, there will be enough deceases and homosexuality and killing to put things back in check. it'll happen automatically whether we want it to or not. It's already starting, but it will get worse before it gets better. Im going to enjoy myself and not worry too much about it because its out of my hands.

I'm fairly sure that's how AIDS and Ebola have gotten started - since humanity isn't cleaning house, Nature is taking over.

AIDS came around first - the idea of the virus is simple. If people are breeding entirely too much, let's make the simple act of breeding dangrous and potentially lethal. This should slow down breeding.

Didn't work? Let's come up with some nasty disease, that uses a mechanism we haven't a cure for (how many viral diseases do we have cures for? In round figures - zero. We can work to prevent them, but only the body can cure them...) transmits on an airborne vector (taking care of populous areas,) and is nearly 100% fatal.

I wonder what will be next. Some variety of "Super-Ebola," with a long incubation time and a course of 48 hours? Some mutagenic virus that pulverises germ cells? All of the disease vectors we have been dealing with pretty much work against somatic cells - the germ line hasn't been attacked yet. I honestly think it's only a matter of time (we have congential defects, but they're not directly transmissable except by actual reproduction.)

And, we've been working on "Super-Staph" and the like (due largely to misuse of antibiotics and overuse of sterilisers) long enough that we should see something interesting happening there soon as well.

Also, check your history, and look at wars from the point of view of logistics (vice politics.) Most wars in history were caused by population pressures - and we're hideously overdue for another major global conflict. It's going to be ugly...

Throw in the "demographic warfare" going on (here in the Southwest with New Aztlan, and in southern Europe with the Islamic world,) and things are just getting worse and worse. We really need the safety valve to blow off before it destroys the world entirely...

And, we're not really doing anything to help matters. "Advances" in gerontoloty are keeping people around long past their "use-by" date, we're protecting people from their own stupidity, and much effort is going into keeping children alive who really shouldn't be (Nature is self-correcting - we just have the conceit to think we can do better...)

Maybe we do need to start killing people off. We're not letting it happen on its own...

fscrig75
July 14th, 2008, 03:26
Free birth control would sure help the issue. I'm not a big fan of the Government passing anything free out but it would help.
I'm not talking about free abortions but free condoms down at the local clinic, women can get the pill.
But like always the bible thumpers will jump up and start screaming how we are trying to destory the world by educating children about sex.

Kudzu
July 14th, 2008, 05:01
Free birth control would sure help the issue. I'm not a big fan of the Government passing anything free out but it would help.
I'm not talking about free abortions but free condoms down at the local clinic, women can get the pill.
But like always the bible thumpers will jump up and start screaming how we are trying to destory the world by educating children about sex. h

Umm no sure about where you live but Our local health dept already does Free BC..all you have to do is make an appointment with the DR. they give you pills & condoms.

igotanxj
July 14th, 2008, 07:39
No desease will ever wipe out vast majorities of our population like they used to. We have too many resources and technologies for that kind of thing to happen anymore. Many deseases have tried, all have failed. We have had AIDs, Ebola, killer bees (i know, its not a desease), MRSA, west nile, bird flu, etc, etc, etc. I think you guys have been watching too many movies.

Back on topic. I think the prius does contradict all of the tree huggers principles with the manufacturing process taking so much energy and releasing so much pollution. Google earth does show the area is pretty baren, like a desert almost. I think somebody should put up posters of the plant and the area around it asking if the prius really is good for the environment. Ya know, kinda like putting up posters of dead babies to encourage against abortion.

Darky
July 14th, 2008, 08:02
No desease will ever wipe out vast majorities of our population like they used to. We have too many resources and technologies for that kind of thing to happen anymore. Many deseases have tried, all have failed. We have had AIDs, Ebola, killer bees (i know, its not a desease), MRSA, west nile, bird flu, etc, etc, etc. I think you guys have been watching too many movies.

Back on topic. I think the prius does contradict all of the tree huggers principles with the manufacturing process taking so much energy and releasing so much pollution. Google earth does show the area is pretty baren, like a desert almost. I think somebody should put up posters of the plant and the area around it asking if the prius really is good for the environment. Ya know, kinda like putting up posters of dead babies to encourage against abortion.
Sounds like you volunteered! :D

Darky
July 14th, 2008, 08:03
Free birth control would sure help the issue. I'm not a big fan of the Government passing anything free out but it would help.
I'm not talking about free abortions but free condoms down at the local clinic, women can get the pill.
But like always the bible thumpers will jump up and start screaming how we are trying to destory the world by educating children about sex.
I've been known to thump a Bible or two, but as much as I don't like the idea of "encouraging" kids to have sex, I know they're gonna do it with or without free condoms and would rather see them at least be safe.

5-90
July 14th, 2008, 18:49
Free birth control would sure help the issue. I'm not a big fan of the Government passing anything free out but it would help.
I'm not talking about free abortions but free condoms down at the local clinic, women can get the pill.
But like always the bible thumpers will jump up and start screaming how we are trying to destory the world by educating children about sex.

We can educate kids, or they can figure it out on their own. If we educate them, we can point up the fact that a condom is far cheaper than a kid, and less risk than an abortion!

Hardcore Bible-thumbers just don't make that connection - kids are going to figure it out sooner or later, one way or another. I'm not a huge fan of all the "Government Giveaways" either, but this would be one that would work well.

If we could get the UN to do this worldwide, it would probably be the first useful thing they've done since they were started...

Darky
July 15th, 2008, 11:37
If we could get the UN to do this worldwide, it would probably be the first useful thing they've done since they were started...
Probably make a nice dent in the AIDS population of Africa.

JNickel101
July 15th, 2008, 12:12
C-17 airdropping tons and tons of condoms across Africa....

:roflmao:

I would pay to see that!

Ray H
July 15th, 2008, 12:35
C-17 airdropping tons and tons of condoms across Africa....

:roflmao:

I would pay to see that!

They would just use them to carry water and tie them into their braids.

Darky
July 15th, 2008, 12:37
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/darkXJ/thatsracistfq8.gif

;)

jpcherokeekid
July 16th, 2008, 15:36
Its not racist if its true. lol.

to be honest ive heard more racist comments from minorities than from white people. and as long as there doing it so will i. everyone is just way too politically correct these days.

cherokeefan_1
July 16th, 2008, 17:40
X2 on post number 28.People need to STOP BREEDING if we want to have a chance at saving the earth.The earth is already to overpopulated.

bjoehandley
July 16th, 2008, 21:19
Back on topic now...........one of the members of the local Jeep Club found this, I'll let his quote take over from here
so, i had stopped at the new Whole Foods in Naperville on 75th street today, they had their grand opening today. afterwards had a bite at the new Buffalo Wild Wings near there.
that was when i noticed this lovely sign pictured below. it seems that who ever owns that strip mall had those placed by all the stores, most of which are next to the handicap or closer to the door.

thought it was funny as hell, i mean who is going to save more gas driving around the parking lot rather that parking close? me or some guy driving a foreign hybrid?

i'll be back over there again, the Whole Foods is a monster of a store, for them anyway. and figure i'll need to park in that Preferred Parking spot. besides, who they gonna call, the parking police? not fines posted or "only" either! :busted_cop::chuck-ball:

http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n101/Crazy_Elwin/Terra%20Stuff/prefferedparking.jpg

law.74
July 16th, 2008, 21:42
I thought this was the off-topic forum. I.E. all topics go off...

...If people were really interested in being "green" they would stop having babies.

Careful now. "Dumb" people are reproducing at an alarming rate. "Smart" i.e. edumucated people are not. The greenies think they're in the smart category, btw.

Ray H
July 16th, 2008, 21:54
I thought this was the off-topic forum. I.E. all topics go off...



Careful now. "Dumb" people are reproducing at an alarming rate. "Smart" i.e. edumucated people are not. The greenies think they're in the smart category, btw.

Thinking they are smart and actually BEING smart are two seperate things. Its more often than not that the dumbest people think they are the smartest.
I know Im not smart enough to fix everyones problems so I just concentrate on mine.

bjoehandley
July 16th, 2008, 22:10
Thinking they are smart and actually BEING smart are two seperate things. Its more often than not that the dumbest people think they are the smartest.
I know Im not smart enough to fix everyones problems so I just concentrate on mine.


Yup, just because you're book smart doesn't mean that you can find your ass with both hands and a mirror.......

WrenchMonkey
July 16th, 2008, 22:34
Thinking they are smart and actually BEING smart are two seperate things. Its more often than not that the dumbest people think they are the smartest...

You mean people who want to tell me what to drive, but can't manage to spell "preferred?"

Robert

igotanxj
July 16th, 2008, 22:48
You mean people who want to tell me what to drive, but can't manage to spell "preferred?"

Robert

Thats classic! Mispelled signs are great, especially this one.

Ray H
July 16th, 2008, 22:59
Thats classic! Mispelled signs are great, especially this one.

The only thing that would make this sign cool is if it were placed at the very far side of the parking lot, the very furthest parking space. That would be awesome.