Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154844 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-07 23:49 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 22:38 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-12-08 17:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 10:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:18 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-08 16:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 23:10 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-09 07:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 12:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-12-09 01:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 08:47 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 16:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-09 17:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-12-09 17:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 18:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-10 04:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 12:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 19:32 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 21:53 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-10 23:03 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-09 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-09 18:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 11:04 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-09 16:06 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:36 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-10 07:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-10 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 01:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-11 15:18 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:21 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-09 17:47 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 22:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Ranger" <r5432@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:20 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-11 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-10 01:41 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-10 16:45 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:26 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-11 14:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:31 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 08:11 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-12 16:58 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-12 11:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 16:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 17:12 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 20:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 06:13 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:16 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:16 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 06:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:51 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 19:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:24 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:30 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 05:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:19 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-06 07:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:26 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:36 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:00 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-07 23:56 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 07:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:32 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 20:42 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 11:03 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:50 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 10:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 12:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:40 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:56 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 19:01 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:12 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:35 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 02:00 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 20:45 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:46 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-05 12:50 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-06 15:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 10:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:03 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:56 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:22 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:19 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:42 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 10:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:29 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:28 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 15:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 19:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:33 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:56 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:25 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:24 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:04 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:22 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:10 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:12 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:00 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:49 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:51 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:36 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 13:24 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 13:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 16:22 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:31 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:13 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 15:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:09 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:09 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:49 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 18:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:47 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 11:01 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:06 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:46 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:49 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:48 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 06:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:21 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:05 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 05:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:57 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:05 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-07 03:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 07:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 08:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:55 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 17:01 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:52 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-11 12:34 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 10:22 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 23:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:14 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 12:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:32 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 11:33 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 06:11 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:28 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:59 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:58 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 18:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:59 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:45 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 04:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 08:05 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:38 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 16:09 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 18:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 11:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 20:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:44 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 04:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 15:03 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:34 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 16:53 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 18:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:43 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 17:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 07:02 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 09:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:42 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 21:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-08 21:25 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 Next page →
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 06:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f6cb519791f71f989da9@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156071 |
In article <slrnn8pus5.170.mausg@smaus.org>, mausg@mail.com says... > > On 2016-01-06, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote: > > On 05/01/2016 18:46, Dave Garland wrote: > >> On 1/5/2016 8:39 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote: > >>> On 05/01/2016 11:23, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > >>>> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT > >>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy > >>>>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from > >>>>>> using it, > >>>>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an > >>>>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody > >>>>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the > >>>>>> edge. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? > >>>> > >>>> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big > >>>> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might > >>>> reduce > >>>> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. > >>>> > >>> Devise a bus service that makes a profit from taking people to work > >>> and bringing them back at night. No subsidies - they are an act of > >>> sabotage. Include cost of buying new buses every few years. Possibly > >>> by permitting the drivers to have a day job. > >> > >> Shouldn't we get rid of "act of sabotage" subsidies for roads as well > >> (fuel taxes and license fees pay for less than half of the cost)? > >> > > > > I am used to living in a country where the annual road tax was/is twice > > the cost of making and repairing roads. You may want to hire politicians > > that can count. > > Back in the 1970s, an irish government, newly elected, decided to eliminate > road tax and put more tax on fuel. Wonderful idea, but ignored the fact that > a large piece of this Island remained on the old system, and it was worthwhile > to drive up, fill up there, and as the difference grew bigger, the distance > that people would drive grew larger. The idea might work in the US. People in CT drive to MA regularly to buy gas--it's 20 cents a gallon cheaper in MA. The conventional wisdom is that if people go from your state to MA to buy _anything_ because it's _cheaper_ you're doing something wrong--MA is also known as "Taxachussetts".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 13:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160106134323.cc31fd30809ad55c245e1e96@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156071 |
On 6 Jan 2016 11:33:29 GMT mausg@mail.com wrote: > Back in the 1970s, an irish government, newly elected, decided to > eliminate road tax and put more tax on fuel. Wonderful idea, but ignored > the fact that a large piece of this Island remained on the old system, > and it was worthwhile to drive up, fill up there, and as the difference > grew bigger, the distance that people would drive grew larger. The idea > might work in the US. In this era of North/South cooperation and so forth it may be possible to try it again, this time with cooperation from the North. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8qc5p.1se.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156087 |
On 2016-01-06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 6 Jan 2016 11:33:29 GMT > mausg@mail.com wrote: > >> Back in the 1970s, an irish government, newly elected, decided to >> eliminate road tax and put more tax on fuel. Wonderful idea, but ignored >> the fact that a large piece of this Island remained on the old system, >> and it was worthwhile to drive up, fill up there, and as the difference >> grew bigger, the distance that people would drive grew larger. The idea >> might work in the US. > > In this era of North/South cooperation and so forth it may be > possible to try it again, this time with cooperation from the North. > 1) At the moment, fuel is dearer ooop North. 2) The whole thing is mixed up with fuel laundering, with people a sensible person does not want to deal with. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160106161436.9ba1f625b96b9cd9a2703c64@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156108 |
On 6 Jan 2016 15:20:29 GMT mausg@mail.com wrote: > On 2016-01-06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > On 6 Jan 2016 11:33:29 GMT > > mausg@mail.com wrote: > > > >> Back in the 1970s, an irish government, newly elected, decided to > >> eliminate road tax and put more tax on fuel. Wonderful idea, but > >> ignored the fact that a large piece of this Island remained on the old > >> system, and it was worthwhile to drive up, fill up there, and as the > >> difference grew bigger, the distance that people would drive grew > >> larger. The idea might work in the US. > > > > In this era of North/South cooperation and so forth it may be > > possible to try it again, this time with cooperation from the North. > > > 1) At the moment, fuel is dearer ooop North. > 2) The whole thing is mixed up with fuel laundering, with people > a sensible person does not want to deal with. Yes I recall an ex garda telling me about the time when you could mix agri diesel from the North and South and the dyes would precipitate out. He quite when policing around the border got too dangerous (knives and guns were OK, dirty needles not so much). -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mausg@mail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8qsgc.26g.mausg@smaus.org> |
| In reply to | #156124 |
On 2016-01-06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 6 Jan 2016 15:20:29 GMT > mausg@mail.com wrote: > >> On 2016-01-06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> > On 6 Jan 2016 11:33:29 GMT >> > mausg@mail.com wrote: >> > >> >> Back in the 1970s, an irish government, newly elected, decided to >> >> eliminate road tax and put more tax on fuel. Wonderful idea, but >> >> ignored the fact that a large piece of this Island remained on the old >> >> system, and it was worthwhile to drive up, fill up there, and as the >> >> difference grew bigger, the distance that people would drive grew >> >> larger. The idea might work in the US. >> > >> > In this era of North/South cooperation and so forth it may be >> > possible to try it again, this time with cooperation from the North. >> > >> 1) At the moment, fuel is dearer ooop North. >> 2) The whole thing is mixed up with fuel laundering, with people >> a sensible person does not want to deal with. > > Yes I recall an ex garda telling me about the time when you could > mix agri diesel from the North and South and the dyes would precipitate > out. He quite when policing around the border got too dangerous (knives and > guns were OK, dirty needles not so much). > Friend has a wife who has been promoted in work, now has a very nice BMW, so he got it to go into Dublin for parts, all OK, but as his wife sped to work the next morning, car slowed and died. New Engine needed, the fuel he had put in it the previous day had contained dodgy stuff. Frosty relations for a while. -- greymaus . . ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1210432959.473731128.474466.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #155957 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT > Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, >>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >>>> >>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy >>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. >>>> >>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. >>> >>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an >>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody >>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >> >> So, smartarse, what's your solution? > > Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big > help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might reduce > the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. > I think cars sold by a dealer have to pass inspection. Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 18:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <87io37pm06.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> |
| In reply to | #156039 |
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: > Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? > Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent > of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see > rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive > subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. Well - a common rejoinder by transit agencies is that they have to run painfully long headway on some routes, because it's not economical to run the busses for the ridership levels. (Of course, I can think of other *better* ways to solve this with paratransit optionsk, a wider variety of vehicles in the fleet, better coordination between transit agencies and the employers). When I was a much younger man, there was about five months in the SFBA when I lived in Milpitas, and worked in Santa Clara. From my house to work was 1.3 hours (for a drive that was twelve minutes door to door). I had to walk two miles, take a bus to a transfer point, wait an average of 48 minutes (could be as low as 1 and as long as 90 depending on luck) and take a second bus to about half a mile from my workplace. With my second milestone check, I bought a motorcycle and said goodbye to the bus, forever. The Catch-22 is that "Nobody uses the bus, becuase it's not convenient enough" and "The busses can't operate enough vehicles on route, because not enough people use them." The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ... NK1G
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 08:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ss6dncEFzKiqTRHLnZ2dnUU78QmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #156045 |
On 06/01/2016 00:52, Lawrence Statton wrote:
{snip}
>
> The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their
> own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where
> they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've
> read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those
> riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ...
>
> NK1G
>
A workman is responsible for the quality of work he does. The bus
company's director of route planning needs firing and replacing by
someone who is competent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 06:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f6c5a7881f63a1989da7@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156061 |
In article <ss6dncEFzKiqTRHLnZ2dnUU78QmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
am.swallow@btinternet.com says...
>
> On 06/01/2016 00:52, Lawrence Statton wrote:
> {snip}
>
> >
> > The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their
> > own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where
> > they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've
> > read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those
> > riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ...
> >
> > NK1G
> >
> A workman is responsible for the quality of work he does. The bus
> company's director of route planning needs firing and replacing by
> someone who is competent.
The local tobacco farmers do that during harvest. But the four man
machine shop or the computer store in the mall or the McDonalds down the
way are too small to sustain that model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 09:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c5f62eb4-29b0-44db-97a0-3d17f03e0131@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156061 |
On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 3:28:40 AM UTC-5, Andrew Swallow wrote: > A workman is responsible for the quality of work he does. The bus > company's director of route planning needs firing and replacing by > someone who is competent. An awful lot of work goes into planning bus route service. Suburban buses serving low density areas are forced to be a compromise to serve as many people as possible at a moderate cost. Take a look at this bus route. It takes a long roundabout route in order to serve as many population, manufacturing, and commercial points as practical. It does not serve all of them. The route is studied regularly and adjusted as needed. Almost all the areas served are heavy automobile-oriented. http://www.septa.org/schedules/bus/pdf/127.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 08:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8s86t.8kf.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156131 |
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 09:56:36 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 3:28:40 AM UTC-5, Andrew Swallow wrote: > >> A workman is responsible for the quality of work he does. The bus >> company's director of route planning needs firing and replacing by >> someone who is competent. > > An awful lot of work goes into planning bus route service. Suburban > buses serving low density areas are forced to be a compromise to > serve as many people as possible at a moderate cost. > > Take a look at this bus route. It takes a long roundabout route in > order to serve as many population, manufacturing, and commercial > points as practical. It does not serve all of them. The route is > studied regularly and adjusted as needed. Almost all the areas served > are heavy automobile-oriented. > > http://www.septa.org/schedules/bus/pdf/127.pdf > In my PPOE we ran the local transport, we had a large and busy planning department that set bus routes and schedules, and commuter train times, with the idea of making an integreated transport system. Still goes on to some extent now (after privatization) but the buses are now run by private companies. Some routes with low passenger densities but are deemed essential are subsidised but most routes make money. Getting people to work is important and most British cities have very limited and expensive car parking. This is Merseyside btw. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2019001831.473772978.033872.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156045 |
Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >> Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? >> Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent >> of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see >> rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive >> subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. > > Well - a common rejoinder by transit agencies is that they have to run > painfully long headway on some routes, because it's not economical to > run the busses for the ridership levels. > > (Of course, I can think of other *better* ways to solve this with > paratransit optionsk, a wider variety of vehicles in the fleet, better > coordination between transit agencies and the employers). > > When I was a much younger man, there was about five months in the SFBA > when I lived in Milpitas, and worked in Santa Clara. From my house to > work was 1.3 hours (for a drive that was twelve minutes door to door). > I had to walk two miles, take a bus to a transfer point, wait an average > of 48 minutes (could be as low as 1 and as long as 90 depending on luck) > and take a second bus to about half a mile from my workplace. > > With my second milestone check, I bought a motorcycle and said goodbye > to the bus, forever. > > The Catch-22 is that "Nobody uses the bus, becuase it's not convenient > enough" and "The busses can't operate enough vehicles on route, because > not enough people use them." > > The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their > own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where > they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've > read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those > riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ... > It also irritates other people who live in the same neighborhoods but work elsewhere. Seeing your neighbor get door-to-door service while you have to go thru the experience related above is a bit annoying. Of course the solution is to use vans and flexible scheduling. People could subscribe to a weekly service that picks them up and drops them off, along with a van load of others. Non-subscribers could call for service at a higher rate. -- Pete
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 08:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <df4laoFbp8aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156075 |
"Peter Flass" wrote: > Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes: >>> Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? >>> Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the >>> extent >>> of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see >>> rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive >>> subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. >> >> Well - a common rejoinder by transit agencies is that they have to run >> painfully long headway on some routes, because it's not economical to >> run the busses for the ridership levels. >> >> (Of course, I can think of other *better* ways to solve this with >> paratransit optionsk, a wider variety of vehicles in the fleet, better >> coordination between transit agencies and the employers). >> >> When I was a much younger man, there was about five months in the SFBA >> when I lived in Milpitas, and worked in Santa Clara. From my house to >> work was 1.3 hours (for a drive that was twelve minutes door to door). >> I had to walk two miles, take a bus to a transfer point, wait an average >> of 48 minutes (could be as low as 1 and as long as 90 depending on luck) >> and take a second bus to about half a mile from my workplace. >> >> With my second milestone check, I bought a motorcycle and said goodbye >> to the bus, forever. >> >> The Catch-22 is that "Nobody uses the bus, becuase it's not convenient >> enough" and "The busses can't operate enough vehicles on route, because >> not enough people use them." >> >> The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their >> own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where >> they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've >> read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those >> riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ... >> > > It also irritates other people who live in the same neighborhoods but work > elsewhere. Seeing your neighbor get door-to-door service while you have > to > go thru the experience related above is a bit annoying. > > Of course the solution is to use vans and flexible scheduling. People > could subscribe to a weekly service that picks them up and drops them off, > along with a van load of others. > > Non-subscribers could call for service at a higher rate. That subscriber thing sounds like an actual idea! Kind of a made to order car-pool for people without cars.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 08:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8s8m1.8kf.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #156088 |
On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 08:06:17 -0600, Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote: > "Peter Flass" wrote: >> >> Of course the solution is to use vans and flexible scheduling. People >> could subscribe to a weekly service that picks them up and drops them off, >> along with a van load of others. >> >> Non-subscribers could call for service at a higher rate. > > That subscriber thing sounds like an actual idea! Kind of a made to order > car-pool for people without cars. > A bit like a "Bus on Demand" system I used as a demo of Prologs map handling in around 1990/1 (Sorry to introduce computers to this thread!). At that time the lack of cheap gps and mobile networking made it impractical but it's still a sound idea. (It was only a tiny demo but it showed how it *could* be done) -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9fbe3273-12e2-4a20-839c-31b69bf443d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #156045 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 7:52:44 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: > (Of course, I can think of other *better* ways to solve this with > paratransit optionsk, a wider variety of vehicles in the fleet, better > coordination between transit agencies and the employers). If you will look at a typical SEPTA bus route, you will see that it serves a variety of places. SEPTA certainly does try to coordinate is routes and schedules with major employers and schools, but it gets complicated. A single point probably doesn't generate enough traffic to justify dedicated service. Also, a key cost in transit is the driver. Running a smaller vehicle saves a little money, but not that much. > The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their > own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where > they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've > read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those > riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ... It's pretty hard for employers to do that, for the same reason it's hard for transit agencies to do it: people in suburban areas live too far apart to have "points convenient to where they live". People in row house communities have roughly twice or thrice the population density of suburban areas, and that densit will support transit with reasonable walking distance and service frequency. (examples available upon request). In New York City, they have frequent buses all over the place since most neighborhoods are high density and people use them. Cross the city limits to the suburbs, and there the bus routes are much more spread out and don't run as often.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 16:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rqbjy.66586$xz4.52334@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #156121 |
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes: >On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 7:52:44 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Statton wrote: >> The 21st Century solution is that major employers own and operate their >> own coaches, that gather employees at meet points convenient to where >> they live, and bring them to corporate campus. From commentary I've >> read, this irritates the public transit agencies, because they see those >> riders as somehow rightfully "theirs" ... > >It's pretty hard for employers to do that, for the same reason >it's hard for transit agencies to do it: people in suburban areas >live too far apart to have "points convenient to where they live". >People in row house communities have roughly twice or thrice the >population density of suburban areas, and that densit will support >transit with reasonable walking distance and service frequency. >(examples available upon request). Lawrence is referring specifically to Google, Facebook and Linked-in all of which run very large private luxury coach fleets between San Francisco and their campuses in the valley (Menlo Park for FB, Mt View for Google and Sunnyvale for LinkedIn). A coworkers daughter just graduated from UCB and took a job with Google. She chose to live in SF and take the google coach and loves it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 22:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6i4r0$chp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156039 |
On 1/5/2016 6:24 PM, Peter Flass wrote: > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT >> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >>>>> >>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy >>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. >>>>> >>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. >>>> >>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an >>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody >>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >>> >>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? >> >> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big >> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might reduce >> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. >> > > I think cars sold by a dealer have to pass inspection. I don't think so, outside of the factory and any inspection the dealer might choose to do (in my state). > Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? > Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent > of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see > rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive > subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. > Who the heck says that public roads have to be subsidized? They receive immense subsidies. The street in front of my home is entirely subsidized by property taxes, but even other roads (county, state, and federal) receive immense subsidies. Shouldn't users be paying their own freight? Yes, that would make some goods more expensive, but OTOH it would make our taxes less, and benefit vendors who were more local (but might not have the money for expensive lobbyists and bribes). According to Lynn, the cost is mainly due to wear from 18-wheelers, but in any case roughly half of the cost of roads/highways/streets in the US is paid for by subsidies rather than users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f6c44fbfc59cb0989da3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156053 |
In article <n6i4r0$chp$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 1/5/2016 6:24 PM, Peter Flass wrote: > > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT > >> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy > >>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. > >>>>> > >>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. > >>>> > >>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, > >>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an > >>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody > >>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. > >>> > >>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? > >> > >> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big > >> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might reduce > >> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. > >> > > > > I think cars sold by a dealer have to pass inspection. > > I don't think so, outside of the factory and any inspection the dealer > might choose to do (in my state). > > > Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? > > Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent > > of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see > > rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive > > subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. > > > Who the heck says that public roads have to be subsidized? They > receive immense subsidies. The street in front of my home is entirely > subsidized by property taxes, but even other roads (county, state, and > federal) receive immense subsidies. Shouldn't users be paying their > own freight? That's the idea behind gas tax. It, in principle, is proportional to use. In practice the heaviest users get off fairly lightly. > Yes, that would make some goods more expensive, Just about all goods require transportation at some point. What goods wouldn't be more expensive? > but OTOH > it would make our taxes less, Whose taxes? Or are you calling your usage fees something other than "tax"? And how would you implement such a fee? > and benefit vendors who were more local > (but might not have the money for expensive lobbyists and bribes). > According to Lynn, the cost is mainly due to wear from 18-wheelers, > but in any case roughly half of the cost of roads/highways/streets in > the US is paid for by subsidies rather than users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 15:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <n6jvcd$ldj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156065 |
On 1/6/2016 5:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <n6i4r0$chp$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > says... >> >> On 1/5/2016 6:24 PM, Peter Flass wrote: >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >>>> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT >>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy >>>>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. >>>>>> >>>>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >>>>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an >>>>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody >>>>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >>>>> >>>>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? >>>> >>>> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big >>>> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might reduce >>>> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. >>>> >>> >>> I think cars sold by a dealer have to pass inspection. >> >> I don't think so, outside of the factory and any inspection the dealer >> might choose to do (in my state). >> >>> Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? >>> Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent >>> of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see >>> rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive >>> subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. >>> >> Who the heck says that public roads have to be subsidized? They >> receive immense subsidies. The street in front of my home is entirely >> subsidized by property taxes, but even other roads (county, state, and >> federal) receive immense subsidies. Shouldn't users be paying their >> own freight? > > That's the idea behind gas tax. It, in principle, is proportional to > use. In practice the heaviest users get off fairly lightly. Every user gets off fairly lightly, since the gas tax provides less than half of the cost. The heaviest users get off even more lightly. > >> Yes, that would make some goods more expensive, > > Just about all goods require transportation at some point. What goods > wouldn't be more expensive? Goods that required less transportation (or traveled by rail). > >> but OTOH >> it would make our taxes less, > > Whose taxes? Or are you calling your usage fees something other than > "tax"? And how would you implement such a fee? Of course usage fees are tax. So are property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, VAT. If costs were entirely met by usage fees, the latter taxes would not need to be so high. Those who used the roads would pay more, and those who didn't would pay less. If I work out of my home office, shouldn't I pay less for roads than someone who works 30 miles from where he lives? Remember, currently usage fees (gas tax and license fees in the US) only provide half the cost. > >> and benefit vendors who were more local >> (but might not have the money for expensive lobbyists and bribes). >> According to Lynn, the cost is mainly due to wear from 18-wheelers, >> but in any case roughly half of the cost of roads/highways/streets in >> the US is paid for by subsidies rather than users. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 19:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30f779c5153f4e89989db3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156151 |
In article <n6jvcd$ldj$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com says... > > On 1/6/2016 5:28 AM, J. Clarke wrote: > > In article <n6i4r0$chp$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com > > says... > >> > >> On 1/5/2016 6:24 PM, Peter Flass wrote: > >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > >>>> On 5 Jan 2016 10:22:33 GMT > >>>> Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> In article <20160105000414@news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>>>> rogblake@iname.invalid says... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> So you deprive them of transportation and now they lose the crummy > >>>>>>>> job that they do have. Big help _you_ are. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _You_ are free to help them with your own time, effort, and money. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, > >>>>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. You are an > >>>>>> example of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody > >>>>>> who's barely hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, smartarse, what's your solution? > >>>> > >>>> Useful (subsidised if necessasry) public transport would be a big > >>>> help for this kind of thing. Requiring a pre-sale inspection might reduce > >>>> the chance of having a wreck dumped on our poor victim. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think cars sold by a dealer have to pass inspection. > >> > >> I don't think so, outside of the factory and any inspection the dealer > >> might choose to do (in my state). > >> > >>> Who the heck says that public transportation has to be subsidized? > >>> Certainly the transit companies are happy to sell this, even to the extent > >>> of dropping a route if their extortonate demands aren't met. I can see > >>> rail, that requires special facilities, but bus lines already receive > >>> subsidies in terms if free use of public roads. > >>> > >> Who the heck says that public roads have to be subsidized? They > >> receive immense subsidies. The street in front of my home is entirely > >> subsidized by property taxes, but even other roads (county, state, and > >> federal) receive immense subsidies. Shouldn't users be paying their > >> own freight? > > > > That's the idea behind gas tax. It, in principle, is proportional to > > use. In practice the heaviest users get off fairly lightly. > > Every user gets off fairly lightly, since the gas tax provides less > than half of the cost. The heaviest users get off even more lightly. The Federal gas tax may provide less than half the cost but what does the state gas tax add to that? In any case, why should the gas tax pay all the cost? Just to take one example, hardly anybody in New York drives, but New York benefits massively from an effective transportation system. > >> Yes, that would make some goods more expensive, > > > > Just about all goods require transportation at some point. What goods > > wouldn't be more expensive? > > Goods that required less transportation (or traveled by rail). What goods would those be? Please identify an item. And unless you live across the street from the freight yard, goods aren't going to come to you entirely by rail. > >> but OTOH > >> it would make our taxes less, > > > > Whose taxes? Or are you calling your usage fees something other than > > "tax"? And how would you implement such a fee? > > Of course usage fees are tax. So are property taxes, income taxes, > sales taxes, VAT. If costs were entirely met by usage fees, the latter > taxes would not need to be so high. Those who used the roads would pay > more, and those who didn't would pay less. If I work out of my home > office, shouldn't I pay less for roads than someone who works 30 miles > from where he lives? You do pay less for roads. > Remember, currently usage fees (gas tax and > license fees in the US) only provide half the cost. And so that's half the cost that you personally can avoid by simply not using a motor vehicle, so you pay less. > >> and benefit vendors who were more local > >> (but might not have the money for expensive lobbyists and bribes). > >> According to Lynn, the cost is mainly due to wear from 18-wheelers, > >> but in any case roughly half of the cost of roads/highways/streets in > >> the US is paid for by subsidies rather than users. > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web