NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/autos/27312

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 5.2 KB | 118 lines

Newsgroups: rec.autos
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!sharen
From: [e-mail] (Sharen A. Rund)
Subject: Re: Hot rods & clunkers  (Was: Eth Bl Gas ... )
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:29:01 GMT
Lines: 107

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (James Akers) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>>[e-mail] (David Gunsul) in a flaming rant spews:
>>[e-mail] (Greg Moritz) writes:
>>...................................................
>>[tons-o-stuff deleted from both posters]

     [ ditto ]

>such and it may sound terrible, but what does it really mean?  Some places
>like Mexico City and [some cities in] California have some serious local
>problems...  I am not a geologist and I can't give answers to the problems,
>but the entire nation shouldn't be forced to follow measures to a local
>problem.

and what does Mother Nature do to us every time she blows off a
little steam, or mountain, etc ???

>... lobbying Washington, and even
>resting behind desks at government agencies like the EPA.  These people
>tend to be "heard" while the performace enthusiast community is generally
>disorganized and lets "the system" have it's way.  If hotrodders had
>the automotive equivalent of the NRA, things would be very different.
>[and no the auto manufacturers don't count...  they represent their wallet,
>which is not necessarily in the best interest of the every day rodder]
>
dragsters have NHRA
hotrodders have SEMA and a variety of other groups

>
>Although I may have chosen a different approach, I commend David for
>standing up for what he believes in.  Everyone has a passion in life
>[at least I hope they do ;-)] so imagine a movement that was geared toward
>taking this passion away from you...  wouldn't you fight like hell to
>preserve it?  Whether David is right or wrong is anyone's guess, but
>I am willing to bet that there would be much fewer problems in the world
>if everyone was as spirited.  [No I don't know David and I'm not just
>blowing smoke up his arse!]
>
>[more back-n-forth deleted]
>>I'm *not* equating smoke-belchers with hod-rods.  You should try to see
>>the distinction too.
>
>That is fine and dandy if you see a distinction.  The thing that scares
>me (and Mr. Gonsul, I guess) is that _most_ environmentalists don't!  Not
>to mention that the government screws up most of what it puts it's dick
>into, so I refuse to believe that the governent will make a distinction.
>

most environmentalists scare me....

>>> Once again I will say (hopefully for the last time) I never have
>>> said ANYTHING about keeping smoking "barely making it" cars on the
>>> road.
>>> What I'm trying to get across is, I don't want these programs that are
>>> ridding the road of these "smokers" to suck in the hotrod/restorer cars
>>> as well.
>

ditto

>I think all parties agree that the occasional total piece of shit that
>is billowing smoke, clacking down the road should be fined.  I have seen
>just about an even number of pre-1980 and post-1980 cars in this category!
>It's hard to define in "legalese" a run-down smoking rattle trap chunk of
>shit.
>
>>Then why are you acting so paranoid?  If older cars cause almost 90% of
>>all automotive air pollution, then 'smokers' probably cause almost 90%
>>of that.  As those cars disappear, then the pressure on hotrodders by
>>*actual* eco-nazis will diminish.  Several hundred thousand hotrods driven
>>for small quantities of miles (typically) does not add substantially to
>>overall air pollution.
>
>I couldn't agree more... I think.  What you are saying is that the well-
>maintained cars will live and the shit wagons of the world will die of
>natural causes?  Yes!  The only problem is that this isn't good enough
>for the radicals who have influence!
>
>
>>> > I'm confident that it would be possible to get the older cars cleaned
>>> > up rather than to confiscate them.
>>
>>> What about the restorers that want to keep their cars absolutely stock?
>>
>>I'm talking about bringing cars up to stock specs.  Modifying a car to
>>make it cleaner than new doesn't make economic sense.  This is another
>>example of paranoia at work.  Nowhere was cleaner-than-stock mentioned,
>>yet you somehow latched on to that idea.
>
>What amazes me is that people who seem to have enough interest in cars
>to read this far into the article [wow!] can make themselves out to be
>on opposite spectrums of the argument.  At least you dudes have the balls
>to speak your mind.  Can we agree on that?
>
>
>willing to kill or die for what i believe in,


--
________________       __        ________________   "They that can give up
\_________      \     /_ \      /      _________/  essential liberty to
 \_________      \_____/  \____/      _________/  obtain temporary safety
  \___________________      __________________/  deserve neither liberty
                     /______\                   nor safety."
ALL disclaimers apply ....                           --Benjamin Franklin