Prev: it seemed like a good idea at the time
Next: Why are there so many haters here?
From: JNugent on 21 May 2010 11:32
boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:06:13 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> He never learned to drive a car.
>
> Neither did my grandmother. And after her husband (who could drive) died she
> basically didn't go any further than the local bus could take her.

Neither did my mother.

Unless someone offered her a lift, she hardly ever moved much beyond a radius
of a couple of miles from her home (which was admittedly only a mile or so
from the centre of a large city).

We experienced the same thing as children. It was normal.
From: JNugent on 21 May 2010 11:39
mileburner wrote:
> "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b1hcv59it8rvp4l1oakbndks9v3ojaa17u(a)4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 18:05:48 +0100, "mileburner"
>> <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Somebody I argued with about airtravel told me the carbon cost was
>>>> zero for him because he is travelling in the 20% of seats otherwise
>>>> empty and "the plane was going anyway". This is of course (rather
>>>> pathetic) self deception, you can get it from car haters, car lovers
>>>> and all other points of view.
>>> Ah yes good old self-deception...
>>>
>>> "I *have* to drive, there is no other way of getting there".
>> another car hater had a long term argument with me over that, in the
>> end he killfiled me rather than see he was wrong. If your interests
>> lie outside of cities, its often literally true and more often
>> practically true that car is the only sensible choice. PT works well
>> with large volumes of people going to the same place, for the most
>> popular pastimes in the UK, walking, fishing, birdwatching, field
>> sports etc not using a car is masochism.
>
> I don't deny that the car can be the most sensible and practical choice, but
> that is considerably different to "having" to drive because I "have" to.

No-one is forced to drive by physical threat, if that's what you're driving at.

But it is disingenuous to argue against someone "having to" drive merely on
that basis. What the phrase means is that if they want to take part in some
activities (including, but certainly not limited to, many sorts of work),
they will only be able to do so if they have the use of a car. There's
nothing difficult to understand in that, and surely the world wouldn't fall
about your ears if you gave in and simply recognised the truth of it?

> The
> way in which some of the autophiles go on, you would think that the world
> would cease to exist if they could not drive a car for their oh-so important
> little journeys.

Actually, their own self-defined world *would* cease to exist. You've hit it
right on the head. When I think back to some of the things I have always
enjoyed doing, I realise *immediately* that some of them would have literally
been impossible without private transport (of a sort which can transport c.
100 lbs of equipment), whether driven by me or someone else (and in the early
days, it was always someone else).

Still, as long as it isn't *your* choices being criticised in that rather
mean-spirited way of yours, that's OK, I suppose?
From: JNugent on 21 May 2010 11:41
ChelseaTractorMan wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:57:03 +0100, "mileburner"
> <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't deny that the car can be the most sensible and practical choice, but
>> that is considerably different to "having" to drive because I "have" to.
>
> I dont know anybody who thinks like that.

That's because the phrase is usually being imbued with a meaning it isn't
intended to have.

if someone says they have to drive. they don't (often) mean they have to
drive on pain of death.
From: JNugent on 21 May 2010 11:43
Dave Plowman wrote:

> JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:

>>> They do it because the sites are cheaper and people are stupid.

>> People are stupid to appreciate convenience, speed, choice, low
>> (compared to corner shops) prices, easy free parking and a general
>> atmosphere of welcome, are they?

> It's you who seem to be comparing to a 'corner shop', not me.

The corner shop reference was to the competition on prices which has only
come about since the advent of the (real) supermarket. Corner shops always
charged (and still do if they can get away with it), full RRP.

> And my local
> high street supermarkets both have carparks. They are time restricted, one
> number plate recognition, the other you pay and claim back the parking fee
> at the till. But that time is enough to allow other local shopping.

That was easier than answering the question truthfully, wasn't it?
From: JNugent on 21 May 2010 11:45
mileburner wrote:
> "ChelseaTractorMan" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vjucv5hpufncv3vectvv6lgmgidq7vfsje(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 21 May 2010 11:57:03 +0100, "mileburner"
>> <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't deny that the car can be the most sensible and practical choice,
>>> but
>>> that is considerably different to "having" to drive because I "have" to.
>> I dont know anybody who thinks like that.
>
> It usually manifests itself in the notion "I have to drive to work, as it's
> the only way I can get there"

That may well be true.

Are you claiming that it cannot be true?

> or "I live in the country and I cannot get
> around by any other means".

That is *usually* true for people who live in the country.

Are you claiming that it is not true?

> What these people seem to overlook is that they
> could work somewhere else, or live somewhere else.

Hello, Doug!

Why are you posting under the name "mileburner" today?

Finished Vince's report yet?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Prev: it seemed like a good idea at the time
Next: Why are there so many haters here?