Patrick, I thought about you the moment I saw this article: 5/11/00 5:25 p.m. Rise of The SUV Nation The American people really are splendidly incorrigible. By George Will

First, liberals warned that sport utility vehicles (SUVs) were unfairly safe: They seemed to do relatively well in crashes with smaller, lighter vehicles. Did American drivers become conscience-stricken and trade in their SUVs for more vulnerable vehicles? Not exactly. They bought SUVs at an even faster clip.

Then came the gasoline crisis of a few months ago, when gas prices soared to, oh, almost 1950s levels (adjusted for inflation). This, said liberals, will teach Americans the folly of driving gas-guzzlers.

This just in: The automotive industrys April sales were 9 percent above last Aprils, and SUVs (and light trucks  perhaps with gun racks?) were the hottest items.

Transit Sucks! Build Roads!

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 15, 2000

Answers

Zzzzzzz. . . .

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.

I do believe that the above is the most intelligent post that old CS has ever put on this forum.

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 16, 2000.

>"The automotive industrys April sales were 9 percent above last Aprils, and SUVs (and light trucks  perhaps with gun racks?) were the hottest items."

I hate to break it to y'all, and perhaps this is a bit off subject, but that "up 9 percent" figure is misleading.

For one, we have no idea what the "up" ratio was from previous years. For example, when looking at the month of April for the entire decade of the '90s, we might see "up" figures of 25%, 12%, 45%, and 20%. So by comparisson, 9% is actually DOWN. (Yeah, I watch the Sunday morning talking heads.)

Second, we have no idea what that 9% MEANS. For example, it could just mean that the car-purchasing population has grown 9%. So again, there's no increase in ADDED sales at all. Stagnation.

Or it could mean that Detroit is building crappier cars that fall apart more often, requiring car buyers to purchase a new vehicle more often.

We have NO idea what that 9% means. And even if we did, I'm sure that somewhere, someone could produce figures for transit that are just as peachy.

SCREW ROADS! BUILD TRANSIT!

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.

>"The automotive industrys April sales were 9 percent above last Aprils, and SUVs (and light trucks  perhaps with gun racks?) were the hottest items." I hate to break it to y'all, and perhaps this is a bit off subject, but that "up 9 percent" figure is misleading.  What part of up 9% from last April didnt you understand, CS?

For one, we have no idea what the "up" ratio was from previous years. For example, when looking at the month of April for the entire decade of the '90s, we might see "up" figures of 25%, 12%, 45%, and 20%. So by comparisson, 9% is actually DOWN. (Yeah, I watch the Sunday morning talking heads.) You obviously dont understand the talking heads, and the we you are referring to must be you and your tapeworm. Do you really think there has been a 25% increase in car sales annually for the entire decade? Lessee, that would be 1.25¹⁰ or a mere 930% increase over the past decade! It aint just logarithms that youre incompetent at, CS.

Second, we have no idea what that 9% MEANS. Is this another what the definition of is is sort of thing?

For example, it could just mean that the car-purchasing population has grown 9%. Did we suddenly get a 9% increase in the number of 16 year olds, or has the INS somehow failed to keep out 18 million people?

 So again, there's no increase in ADDED sales at all. Stagnation.  I know you dont understand the concept of logarithms, but percentages arent all that hard.

Or it could mean that Detroit is building crappier cars that fall apart more often, requiring car buyers to purchase a new vehicle more often. We have NO idea what that 9% means. And even if we did, I'm sure that somewhere, someone could produce figures for transit that are just as peachy.  CS, if you dont have brown eyes, you are at most a quart low.


So here are the possibilities:

1. CS is so abysmally ignorant he cant do simple percentages.
2. Hes so opinionated that he is incapable of understanding anything that doesnt agree with his opinion
3. Hes just being argumentative for the hell of it
4. CS has no common sense.
5. All of the above



zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), May 16, 2000.

zowie, you forgot to include the CORRECT answer:

6. CS is correct.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.

Actually, I think zowie took it easy on you also, when he indicated that you were ignorant. Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.

Mikey

-- (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), May 17, 2000.