Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:34:00 -0700
From: SJH <SHARDING@SCHULTE-LAW.COM>
Subject: LRO: RE: Land Rover Bodied Bastard: WAAAY OT
>Kids tend to shed less than dogs, depending on the dog, and the kid.
Good, point, particularly with my dog, a Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever
(five points to anyone on this list who has even HEARD of a Duck Toller. It's
a real breed, by the way.)
>Marin, as Lou Reed once sang, think of it as raising your own
pallbearers.
Also a good point. But as to the question people always ask
adults without kids, "who's going to take care of you when you're
old," my answer (and the answer of all the mostly kid-less people
I work with), is "your kid's taxes."
>So its all very well to say the world is going to hell in a handbasket
and kids these days are the worst, etc, but it is more credible of the
person saying it is also trying to do something about it. And I am sure
you are.
The problem is time. I don't have any for anything outside of what
I'm already doing. This is one reason my wife and I decided not to have
kids, as with all our activities we didn't feel we could give children the
attention they need, and we weren't willing to give up our activities
to do so. So we figured if we can't do it right, we won't do it at all.
> But when it comes to bad kids? Blame the parents and the kids
themselves, once they reach a certain (I think fairly young) age. Not
society, not the schools. Not the Gov'mint.
I'm not sure I'd even blame the kids, at least not at a young age. I've
heard and read countless times that whatever you're going to be in terms
of basic values and attitudes, it's pretty much set by the time you're five
or six. Assuming that's true, the burden's pretty much entirely on the parents,
it seems to me.
>But all that said about making the future rosier, I did buy a gas
powered weed whacker yesterday....
I don't think you could do that if you were in California. I believe you can no
longer buy two-stroke anythings in California, mowers, weed whackers, outboard
motors, etc. Personally, I'm using as much fossil fuel as I possibly can in
every piece of machinery I use. I figure the only way man is going to buckle down
and come up with a better, cleaner, more efficient, environmentally friendly fuel
source is when he is faced the absolute crisis of having no more fuel. Only then
will he step up to the plate. So the faster we burn up the world's supply of fossil
fuel, the better. I am doing my share- the plane I fly burns 25 gallons an hour, and
I drive a Land Rover and a Range Rover, two of the most fuel-inefficient vehicles
one can come up with. Our pickup gets squat for mileage, and I put a higher-performance
engine control computer in my BMW 635csi which knocked at least five mpg off the
economy of the thing, which was none too good to begin with.
See, that's another reason against Land Rover hybrids with engine conversions. You
might accidentally put in an engine that gets better mileage, and will thus be delaying the
day when man is forced to use his brain enough to come up with a better energy source. So
all you conversion freaks out there- you're making the planet worse, not better.
___________________________
C. Marin Faure
(original owner)
1973 Land Rover Series III-88
1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
Seattle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 22:08:26 EDT