Today, Justin made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
> news:Xns98F1525386285ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>[color=green]
>> Me, too! Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will
>> convince me to pop for that SRT8? I need some sort of excuse
>> to salve my conscience that I really need that much power.
>> Man, it sure would be fun![/color]
>
> Less time on road = less fuel spent. The quicker you get
> their the less time you're on the road!
>
> The SRT8 will SAVE you money!
>[/color]
That's an interesting concept, Justin. In my best Mr. Spock-ism,
"Capt. Kirk, I shall consider it!". Mebbe I should extend your
rationale into one of those really swoopy M-B CLK cars they are
calling 4-door coupes, which are drop dead gorgeous, full featured
beyond imagination, and can stay with the best of 'em at the stop
light Grand Prix. And, I can even use my EP discount to buy one.
Lets see, $138K MSRP less dealer markup less EP, hmmm. Naw, mebbe
better rething the SRT again ..

Have a good one, and think Charger - or think Challenger. That's my
next lust point. I imagine I may have to settle for "only" a 5.7L
but then, mebbe my stock broker can boost me to 425 or 500 hp (if
that is accurate scuttlebut). It's over a year away, as is Vista
for me, so one can always dream ...

--
HP, aka Jerry

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0700, "Justin" <None@None.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
>news:Xns98F1525386285ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>[color=green]
>> Me, too! Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will convince
>> me to pop for that SRT8? I need some sort of excuse to salve my
>> conscience that I really need that much power. Man, it sure would
>> be fun![/color]
>
>Less time on road = less fuel spent.[/color]

Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you) knows the
faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It therefore will cost you
more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH then it would at 60 MPH.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:nr5bv29f203bdei7kl5tjskif8r7moumi8@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you) knows the
> faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It therefore will cost you
> more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH then it would at 60 MPH.[/color]

**** dude. You seriously are dumber then dog crap.

Jerry wrote: "Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will convince me"

You really need to learn to read something then STOP! Think about it for a
second. At least TRY to understand what you've read and then proceed.

Unless you're just being like this for your own amusement. If so then I
guess we need to just ignore you.

Today, Adam Albright made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0700, "Justin" <None@None.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
>>news:Xns98F1525386285ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Me, too! Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will
>>> convince me to pop for that SRT8? I need some sort of excuse
>>> to salve my conscience that I really need that much power.
>>> Man, it sure would be fun![/color]
>>
>>Less time on road = less fuel spent.[/color]
>
> Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you)
> knows the faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It
> therefore will cost you more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH
> then it would at 60 MPH.
>[/color]
That's a yolk,son! <grin> I liked the irony of Justin's idea to
give me the ammo I need to convince myself and my wife to let me
have an SRT8, and I'm trying to extend that to maybe a Z-06, a
Viper or - dare I say it? - a Ferrari Enzo. Gas using Justin's
tongue-in-cheek logic should be so cheap the oil companies will pay
me!

--
HP, aka Jerry

Today, Justin made these interesting comments ...
[color=blue]
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:nr5bv29f203bdei7kl5tjskif8r7moumi8@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you)
>> knows the faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It
>> therefore will cost you more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH
>> then it would at 60 MPH.[/color]
>
> **** dude. You seriously are dumber then dog crap.
>
> Jerry wrote: "Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will
> convince me"[/color]

See my reply, Justin. I enjoyed your retort to me, and am now
thinking of a Ferrari Enzo for a cool million, ought to be almost
free to drive that dude at 212 mph!
[color=blue]
> You really need to learn to read something then STOP! Think
> about it for a second. At least TRY to understand what you've
> read and then proceed.
>
> Unless you're just being like this for your own amusement. If
> so then I guess we need to just ignore you.
>[/color]
People jump into the middle of a long-winded - mainly me - set of
replies to replies to replies and can easily take things out of
context. I cannot think of anyone that has enough brain cells to
even button their shirt thinking that higher speed means higher
fuel consumption, in general (the exceptions being narrow
conditions where an engine controller can eke out more economy at
slightly higher speeds, ala MDS).

--
HP, aka Jerry

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns98F1A064FACD5ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...[color=blue]
> See my reply, Justin. I enjoyed your retort to me, and am now
> thinking of a Ferrari Enzo for a cool million, ought to be almost
> free to drive that dude at 212 mph![/color]

A 40 mile commute would take 11 minutes. You could go home for lunch and be
back in time!

[color=blue]
> People jump into the middle of a long-winded - mainly me - set of
> replies to replies to replies and can easily take things out of
> context. I cannot think of anyone that has enough brain cells to
> even button their shirt thinking that higher speed means higher
> fuel consumption, in general (the exceptions being narrow
> conditions where an engine controller can eke out more economy at
> slightly higher speeds, ala MDS).[/color]

He knows what he did. He's been trolling for a while now. See the "Talk
about WOW" thread. The trolls are now fighting with each other. I'm
staying out of that one.

Adam Albright wrote:
..[color=blue]
>
> Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you) knows the
> faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It therefore will cost you
> more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH then it would at 60 MPH.
>
>[/color]

Not if you're coasting down a hill.

No gas needed at all. In fact, you can turn the engine off completely.

Alias

"Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
news:et4qof$3v3$3@aioe.org...[color=blue]
> Adam Albright wrote:
> .[color=green]
>>
>> Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you) knows the
>> faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It therefore will cost you
>> more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH then it would at 60 MPH.
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Not if you're coasting down a hill.
>
> No gas needed at all. In fact, you can turn the engine off completely.[/color]


Awe crap! There always comes a time when I just have to admit....**** that
was good!

Justin wrote:[color=blue]
> "Alias" <alias@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message
> news:et4qof$3v3$3@aioe.org...[color=green]
>> Adam Albright wrote:
>> .[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you) knows the
>>> faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It therefore will cost you
>>> more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH then it would at 60 MPH.
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> Not if you're coasting down a hill.
>>
>> No gas needed at all. In fact, you can turn the engine off completely.[/color]
>
>
> Awe crap! There always comes a time when I just have to admit....****
> that was good!
>
>[/color]

Alias takes a bow and waves to the throngs on their feet clapping.

That said, I try to avoid moving vehicles as they are the most dangerous
place you can put your body, even more dangerous than strolling down a
street in downtown Baghdad or South Central LA, although I'm not sure
which of those two are more dangerous :-)

Alias

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:12:41 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0700, "Justin" <None@None.com> wrote:[color=green]
>>"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Me, too! Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will convince
>>> me to pop for that SRT8? I need some sort of excuse to salve my
>>> conscience that I really need that much power. Man, it sure would
>>> be fun![/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Less time on road = less fuel spent.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you) knows the
>faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It therefore will cost you
>more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH then it would at 60 MPH.[/color]

System efficiency plays a role, too. It wouldn't surprise me if
driving from LA to NY in 1st gear at 5 mph costs more than in top gear
cruise at 55 mph.

In terms of computing, there's a "capacity" or "speed" below which it
is more expensive to deliberately develop "smaller" systems, and a
higher level above which it's cheaper and more effective to harness
multiple smaller systems than to try and make one big one.

There's efficiency, too. It's not "cheaper" to use 22-bit data than
32-bit, or 5-bit ASCII than 8-bit, because of this.


[color=blue]
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -[/color]
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use![color=blue]
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -[/color]

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...
[color=blue]
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:12:41 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net>
> wrote:[color=green]
>>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 09:16:25 -0700, "Justin" <None@None.com>
>>wrote:[color=darkred]
>>>"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> Me, too! Can you offer me some psycho-babble that will
>>>> convince me to pop for that SRT8? I need some sort of
>>>> excuse to salve my conscience that I really need that much
>>>> power. Man, it sure would be fun![/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>Less time on road = less fuel spent.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>>Justin, you're really a funny character. EVERYONE (but you)
>>knows the faster you drive the MORE fuel you'll use. It
>>therefore will cost you more in fuel burned driving at 95 MPH
>>then it would at 60 MPH.[/color]
>
> System efficiency plays a role, too. It wouldn't surprise me
> if driving from LA to NY in 1st gear at 5 mph costs more than
> in top gear cruise at 55 mph.
>
> In terms of computing, there's a "capacity" or "speed" below
> which it is more expensive to deliberately develop "smaller"
> systems, and a higher level above which it's cheaper and more
> effective to harness multiple smaller systems than to try and
> make one big one.
>
> There's efficiency, too. It's not "cheaper" to use 22-bit
> data than 32-bit, or 5-bit ASCII than 8-bit, because of this.
>[/color]
All that is true. I'd add that the OP you're replying to missed a
joke from who HE was replying to, and Windows has never been a
paragon of efficiency and has generally depended highly on the HW
folks to build a better machine to "hide" their "inefficiency".

--
HP, aka Jerry