[acadian]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Is there any kind of regulation for on-road vehicles that you would support?

It must be "excellent"....

[anim8ing]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

There are many bike racks available for cars, which is basically my point in this whole thing. Many people who have SUV's don't need them, and are sedeuced into thinking they need them by high-dollar advertising by the automakers. We shouldn't get rid of semis because they are necessary for transporting large cargo. We shouldn't get rid of SUV's either, because some people genuinely need them. But, most don't, which is what bothers me.

ok, so let's go with your idea. I'll buy the best bike rack money can get me. Probably run about $4-500.00. Now I'm supposed to be able to walk into a store to grab something and HOPE that metal/plastic tubed item is going to protect my investment? Right. Do me a favor, leave your windows down and lock your doors, it's the same thing. Just because YOU don't personally want/need an SUV is no reason to bash people that do. You don't know what the majority of people driving SUVs even use them for, so how can you generalize?

I suppose that in your world all people that have sports cars drive 180mph all the time, and all people that watch nascar are rednecks? Interesting theory you have there, but it's completely wrong.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by anim8ing

You don't know what the majority of people driving SUVs even use them for, so how can you generalize?

Depending on who you're choosing to believe the numbers of SUVs never driven off the road ranges from 80% (minimum) to 91% (maximum).
I have plenty of anecdotal (read unscientific) evidence of my own where soccer mums drop little Charles off at school in a vehicle capable of crossing most deserts.

Of course things are different if you're living in the country and need a workhorse. But then, most farmers I know have tractors for working and a perfectly normal family car for getting around in.

[Kevin]

Meh, I know a gal that bought one because TWICE a year she has to go to her moms house which is in the middle of nowhere.

I guess she should have just got a Yugo or something.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Get parents to teach their kids not to run behind vehicles?

Get kids to teach their parents they don't need offroad vehicles for driving to the mall and grocery store?

>flexes knuckles<

Guess who's here morons? Time to try your best to defend your little dic I mean needs to own an SUV.

- Ca$h

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Timo

That's a lot of dumbass parents.

Obviously. Look at the popularity of SUVs in recent years. They've replaced the minivan which replaced the station wagon as the family vehicle.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by jcadam

Why do people buy big-ass off-road vehicles to drive themselves to work and back? I don't understand. They are ill-suited to the task, more difficult to drive, and they cost more to purchase AND operate. On the base where I work, there is a man who, I am pretty sure, has no penis. He drives a big-ass, bright yellow Hummer H2. By himself. To work. Everyday.

Sounds like that guy who posts here and has some sports team for his sig. He claims he needs his SUV to 'deliver papers'. WTF?! I thought CHILDREN on bicycles delivered papers. Maybe he offroads in the back country to deliver papers to residents living in the outback? Somehow I doubt it.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Rev-O

Because a few times during the winter I have to drive to work before the snow plows have cleared the roads (so that I can get in a snow plow and clear roads). Not a task well suited for minivans. Alas, the SUV I use for this purpose is not big assed, but it does have low range.

Ever heard of snow tires? Or a subaru? I've driven past countless SUVs stuck in a ditch with my low slung AWD subaru. And I communicate with them. By flipping them off. I used to be a ski instructor a ways out into the country and had to drive there early mornings before all the roads were plowed. I think a subaru with snow tires would get through almost anything that nature could throw at you much faster and safer and predictably than an SUV.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by SSharon

The article that the OP linked to talks about all the sensors available and it explains why they shouldn't be mandated, and I agree with them. Drivers ed needs to be much harder and tested much more frequently.

By more frequently you mean more than just ONCE PER LIFETIME? Because that's what it currently is.

I also don't think the I need the SUV for a few times a year is a good argument. Weather is one thing but to haul stuff why not just rent one for a day and save the environment a little bit.

Even with the weather, just get snow tires. I've driven my old neon through about 10-11" of snowfall ON THE HIGHWAY for over an hour. It was fine. I even passed rolled SUVs and the snowplow. Granted, it wasn't the smartest decision to decide to travel to a town to see my friends to get drunk while it was a blizzard condition outside, but whatever. I made it just fine with FWD in an econobox that had snowtires.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep.

• Must be roadworthy (i.e. pass similar to UK MOT test).
• Must have had the weapons deactivated if it's an ex-military vehicle.
• Must not have a picture of Ca$h on it. Unless it's a Robin Reliant, in which case it *must* have a picture of Ca$h on it.

Wow.

No kinds of emissions control or limits? No safety standards, if not for the occupants, for occupants of other vehicles, and pedestrians? I'd ask about a "gas guzzler" tax but I think I already know your answer.

You should really check out the Libertarian party. Every time we talk, you sound more and more like one.

http://www.lp.org/

Seriously.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

I bought a Dodge Durango. Not only because I think it's one of the best SUV's on the market, it rides like a Caddilac and drives like a tank, but because I deliver papers. I'm sorry I didn't get your permission to get a car I actually wanted, but this is the United States, where people don't have get anyone's permission to buy an SUV.

To deliver papers? Here's an idea:



GEE I NEED A ****ING 4WD OFFROAD VEHICLE IN ORDER TO PUT NEWSPAPERS INTO MAILBOXES!

That's the most retarded excuse I've ever heard. Congrats.

Also, this is the united states. Freedom of speech, and freedom for intelligent people to make fun of stupid people who make stupid decisions (or excuses) like claiming they need a freaking offroad vehicle to deliver newspapers.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

So are you jealous of the other men with big dicks? This is one thing I can NOT stand hearing.

I have an above averages sized dick, with a lot of girth. I'm happy with it. And I'd never drive a penis extension like your durango. Ever. I've driven quite a few high end SUVs and they were all awful on the road...*

*: You know, where most people use them.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Ever heard of snow tires? Or a subaru? I've driven past countless SUVs stuck in a ditch with my low slung AWD subaru. And I communicate with them. By flipping them off. I used to be a ski instructor a ways out into the country and had to drive there early mornings before all the roads were plowed. I think a subaru with snow tires would get through almost anything that nature could throw at you much faster and safer and predictably than an SUV.

Actually, there's a famous TV commercial about this.

How does the men who ploughs the roads get to the snow plough? The reveal showed a guy in an (old) VW beetle. These things really are excellent in the snow.

But the heating sucks.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Your solution sucks.

because......

>echo<

nothingness....

Oh! No reason! Good reply!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Wow.

No kinds of emissions control or limits? No safety standards

UK MOT testing has emissions tests and brake/shocker tests.

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

if not for the occupants, for occupants of other vehicles, and pedestrians?

Screw pedestrians. Most vehicle vs pedestrian incidents here are caused by "walking under influence". Why the hell should the responsibility for their stupidity fall on my shoulders?

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I'd ask about a "gas guzzler" tax but I think I already know your answer.

We have $6 per US gallon here. It sucks.

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

You should really check out the Libertarian party. Every time we talk, you sound more and more like one.

http://www.lp.org/

Seriously.

I'm in a libertarian party. Just not that one.

[SuvsareRetarded]

because the same thing could happen with a car, truck, anything. It's a) driver education and b) child education that will help this.

Gee maybe we should get rid of ABS and power brakes too, eh? After all, drivers education to have a farther distance between vehicles will solve the problem. It has nothing to do with the total lack of visibility of an extremely high vehicle does it?

I put this up there with the parents who forget their kids are in the carseat and leave them in the hot sun all day, or put the carseat on the roof of the car and then drive off. Stupid, preventable accidents... that can and do happen to anyone. Which is what makes them scarier than hell.

By anyone you mean MORONS. Because only a moron would leave their kid in the car with the windows up.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Gee maybe we should get rid of ABS

We should get rid of ABS, for sure. Or at least give the option to turn if off - non-ABS vehicles stop far quicker in snowy conditions than ABS-equipped ones do.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Because

1) What Andi*Pandi said... ...and..

2) Purchasing items based on need alone would completely screw up your economy.

Nobody needs a Lamborghini (even harder to see out of the back of, incidentally. You have to sit on the sill and hang out of it whilst reversing), yet the drive for ownership of such items is essentially what makes your economy function.

So if... for example, it was found that SUVs made up for a much larger percentage of deaths per vehicle (not overall deaths), it obviously is because of driver education, not the fact that SUVs handle and brake like **** and roll over much easier, right? That's retarded.

Also, purchasing items based on need would NOT screw up the economy. Instead of getting a SHITTY BASE MODEL suv people could spend more on a luxurious smaller car with really nice everything, have less car payments, go out to eat mroe, travel more, spend more money on lots of different things. I dunno about you but hte more money I save the more I spend. If I had an SUV I wouldn't EVER go out to eat because I'd be saving for gas and payments.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

We should get rid of ABS, for sure. Or at least give the option to turn if off - non-ABS vehicles stop far quicker in snowy conditions than ABS-equipped ones do.

It is an option. Just unplug the ABS sensor. Poof. Instant no ABS.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I hear what you're saying, and others have made the same point. I agree with you - but not 100%.

If it were fashionable to drive around a vehicle with sharpened steel spikes protruding in every direction, and the number of deaths from pedestrian/vehicle accidents were increasing, would it be satisfactory to simply say, "it's the fault of bad drivers, and pedestrians who need to watch where they're going?"

I would't think so. Clearly, this is an extreme example, but it's qualitatively the same with the real safety problems of SUV's - a design that inherently creates a greater danger to others, through various mechanisms.

I can understand someone arguing that many people need SUV's and should be allowed to buy them. I can understand someone arguing that SUV's shouldn't be regulated. (Although I might not agree with these arguments.) But, given the indisputable facts that SUV's burn more gas than cars and are more dangerous to others on the road, I can't understand why someone would advocate people who don't need SUV's driving them anyway!

But that's because you're reasonable, unlike most SUV drivers.

Which brings me back to my original question: what's wrong with not buying an SUV unless you really need one? Someone, please enlighten my naive, liberal mind.

Cuz you ain't a MAYON fyre4ce! MAYONs drive SUVS and drink bud and watch nascar! **** yeah!

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

None of us here need Macs. Same deal.

Nope. But macs do consume drastically more nonrenewable resources, or have a higher chance of killing or maiming people than PCs.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Oh God, they're bringing GUNS into this.

As a stated extreme example to help you understand a fairly simple concept. Clearly you have failed. Ask a kid in middle school. He might be able to help you undersatnd such a simple idea, because it's quite clear that you're unable to.

HEY LOOK A BALL! GO TEAM! WOOOO!!!!

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not if driven correctly. I'm *far* less dangerous to other people on the roads when I'm driving my SUV than the silly little dweeb down the road in his ricemobile is.

Driver education and harder driving tests is the answer.

Stastics say otherwise. Rollovers have gone up, accidents have gone up, and deaths have gone up in the SUV category.

Again...ricemobiles, sports cars, etc... a fairly SMALL minority of the vehicles on the road. The VAST MAJORITY of vehicles used to be sedans, but the problem is many people are trading in teh family car for an SUV and more people are dying because of it.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by macroy

Ah.. I see - being dangerious is ok... but being MORE dangerious isn't? Last I checked, all automobiles are dangerious if operated incorrectly (and the key concept here is correct operations under real conditions).

But why stop there? Do we really need the other types of cars as well... Why don't we just force EVERYONE to drive little honda civics. Since the majority of folks won't need anymore than that.

That article is obvioulsy from some anti-SUV whiner - as those accidents aren't unique to SUVs. Its been happening way before the big truck craze. The real issues here are the unattentive, idiot parents.

Gee. Okay, I'll do the same thing you just did in the other direction.

I see! You're saying me driving a tank coated in nitro glycerin is dangerous?! Last I checked it was all about the operater behind the treads! I mean, just because it can drive OVER most vehicles and has **** for visibility and zero crumple zones and takes up a few lanes and gets 5mpg doesn't mean it's a dangerous wasteful vehicle, it's all in the driver! But why stop there! Heck, we should all just be driving around half tracks and M1 abrams tanks!!!

[SVass]

The same people who support SUVs want to prevent lawsuits against stupid behaviour. As long as I can sue the moron who hits me or slides into me, then I will support your right to buy an SUV. When you limit my right to sue, then I can outlaw your right to own one. sam

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Minivans and pickup trucks are significantly, demonstrably, and indisputably more dangerous to others on the road. Some models are even more dangerous than SUVs. Yet few if any people complain about these.

Minivans are more stable than SUVs (less likely to roll over, better road manners, better handling, and generally better braking since they weigh a lot less). They also have crumple zones, wheras SUVs have off road suspension and very stiff frames, two key points that make them more dangerous than a minivan.

As for trucks, i don't see the average family man rushing off and trading in his car to get a truck.... but I do see that happening with SUVs. Suvs are becoming the family car, and they get **** mpg, and brake and handle poorly. They are also significantly more dangerous not only to the occupants (in case of a single vehicle accident) but also to everyone else on the road (in case of multiple vehicle accidents).

Nice try though.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Stastics say otherwise. Rollovers have gone up, accidents have gone up, and deaths have gone up in the SUV category.

Again...ricemobiles, sports cars, etc... a fairly SMALL minority of the vehicles on the road.

In your country. Ricemobiles are all over the place here (probably because we have RHD and it's real easy/cheap to import hot Jap models). 90%+ of the road deaths in my vicinity in the last year have involved ricers.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy

We should get rid of ABS, for sure. Or at least give the option to turn if off - non-ABS vehicles stop far quicker in snowy conditions than ABS-equipped ones do.

Oh really? You can pump the brakes faster and more precisely than an ABS system?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Oh really? You can pump the brakes faster and more precisely than an ABS system?

In snowy conditions with a well set-up car it's actually better to allow the wheels to lock.
Assuming that you know how to drive, of course.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This post should really end any arguements about such things. Why? Because it's the truth not filled with FUD.

Thanks for posting it.

Except that minvans are much safer than SUVs. They have crumple zones, they have a road going suspension, and they do not roll over as easily. They also stop better, and are more efficient vehicles to boot.

And he also left out the fact that families are not purchasing trucks for use as a family vehicle to drive to the grocery store and to work and back. Trucks are generally purchased for truck reasons, or by 'mayons' who are basically just too retarded to argue with. Now that you mention it, it'd be interesting to see a diagram of idiotic christians and big trucks.... hrm.....

Anyway, yeah, his post didn't really end the argument at all, since he left out many important areas. What he basically did was reply by bringing up unrelated vehicles. Imagine if someone was saying that sports cars kill a lot of people and I responded by saying "well gee, jet fighters go much faster and they kill people more frequently per hour of use, so your argument that sports cars are dangerous is null and invalid because jet fighters kill people more often"

The problem is that the people who purchase sports cars are not the same people who fly jet fighters (generally). It's not even the same ballpark.

SUV= used as a family car, not as an offroad vehicle.

Minivan= family vehicle

Truck= Not a family vehicle.

His argument was fairly retarded, but I'm not surprised you found it intelligent since you also find Christianity logical.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

In snowy conditions with a well set-up car it's actually better to allow the wheels to lock.
Assuming that you know how to drive, of course.

Have any links to back that up? I've always heard otherwise.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No you didn't...

That isn't what he said. He said SUVs are only dangerous when they have incompetent people behind the wheel.

That could be said about ANY car.

So what the Anti-SUV zealots should be putting their "anger" towards are people who are incompetent drivers. Not SUVs.

Funny, I'd say that SUV drivers are generally the incompetent ones... the ones 'lacking'....

PS: Let's say 'Bob' was an idiot driver who never used his signals and caused accidents wherever he went. He lives in your neighborhood, near people you care about. Would you rather he drive a festiva or an escalade?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

That's the way argument works. I give an example that, while extreme, has similarities to the issue at hand, in order to make a point. Engineers sometimes call it a "limiting case."

Maybe if you could reference football, nascar, or delivering papers he might start to understand.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by anim8ing

ok, so let's go with your idea. I'll buy the best bike rack money can get me. Probably run about $4-500.00. Now I'm supposed to be able to walk into a store to grab something and HOPE that metal/plastic tubed item is going to protect my investment? Right. Do me a favor, leave your windows down and lock your doors, it's the same thing. Just because YOU don't personally want/need an SUV is no reason to bash people that do. You don't know what the majority of people driving SUVs even use them for, so how can you generalize?

You're worried your bike rack will fail, and your expensive bikes will fall off and be destroyed, or get stolen? Even if both bikes were stolen or destroyed, say, once every two years, I'd bet it would still be cheaper to own the car and take the loss than it would be to own the SUV. Why do you think the automakers are pushing so hard for people to buy SUV's? Because they make big profits on them!

The only real reasons people need SUV's are for:

-towing large trailers (3500+ pounds)
-going seriously off-road

Minivans can haul a LOT of people and cargo, in many cases more than most SUV's. If you're worried about snow, there are many cars available with all-wheel drive, which are better than most SUV's on winter roads because of their lower center of gravity. Only if you are going way off-road, where you need the high ride height to keep from bottoming out, or if you need to tow a large trailer, do people really need an SUV.

Another way I know: ten or fifteen years ago, there was no such thing as an "SUV." People who needed cargo/people capacity (like soccer moms) bought minivnas. People who needed to tow heavy trailers bought trucks. People who just needed to get around bought cars. Has there been some fundamental and sweeping change in our society where now everyone needs a heavy truck to conduct their lives? Or has billions of dollars of advertising only convinved us it is so?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I'm sure you are. I don't think I like dweebs in ricemobiles any more than you do.

You also have to consider that ricemobiles are far more 'rare' than SUVs. Try it. Drive anwyhere. Count the number of urban assault vehicles you see. And count the number of riced out dorkmobiles you see.

SUVS are being purchased in large numbers by average people, they are replacing minivans and station wagons as the family car. That's the problem.

An even worse problem is what happens 10-15 years from now, when they depreciate and people who cannot afford to maintain them well start driving them. You think they stop badly now? Wait tilt hey have 200,00 miles and some 17-20 year old driving them working a shitty part time job.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Minivans can haul a LOT of people and cargo, in many cases more than most SUV's.

This is true. Most SUVs have really large wheelwells that intrude into the cabin so they can have a lot of suspension travel for 'offroading'. Minivans generally have a wider and larger cargo area since htey were designed for what people ACTUALLY need, not pretend to need. The mountain bike guy is just a poser, who's trying to bolster is 'outdoorsy' lifestyle by purchasing a vehicle that goes against the very thing he claims to love. It's not his fault. The media has tricked him into thinking that SUVs are adventurous and active, and minvans are for boring families.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Crap. Ran out of time. I'll do the rest of the thread later. Cya sweeties.

[besson3c]

Rob,

Your evidence that supports SUVs being statistically unsafe is sound, and furthermore interesting.

However, people can learn how to drive SUVs so that they aren't a hazard to others (without getting into how safe they become upon impact, which is a whole other argument). People can learn how to do a lot of things safely. It is possible to do certain drugs without it endangering your life, it is possible to do dangerous sports without endangering your life, and it is even possible to run with scissors without injuring yourself!

The question is: are people stupid and inept enough that we need to create legislation that prohibits or somehow restricts the sale of SUVs? Maybe, that is also a whole other argument.

However, you fail to recognize that not everybody is a danger to society behind the wheel of a SUV, and the stats only indicate trends, not inevitable realities. You don't actually *know* whether people in this forum are safe driving their SUVs, you just assume they aren't. This is where the conflict originates from.

If you want to make an argument about restricting SUV usage, requiring special training, etc. go right ahead. I don't think the conversation would be nearly as heated, and you might actually enjoy not haranguing MacNN members for a change!

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by Doofy

In your country. Ricemobiles are all over the place here (probably because we have RHD and it's real easy/cheap to import hot Jap models). 90%+ of the road deaths in my vicinity in the last year have involved ricers.

Got any sources to back that up? I am very skeptical that 90% of the auto deaths in your area are japanese 'tuner' cars.

[besson3c]

Also, Rob,

You've been banned again. This means that the owners of this board do not want you here until you can convince them you should be.

Do you feel that self-righteous that you feel entitled to continue to use their services against their desires?

Basically, what you are doing is like taking a nap on some display beds in a bed store, and despite the owner asking you not to do so and eventually kicking you out, you come back the next day to sleep on the beds as if they are yours and you are entitled to them.

Show some respect for your fellow human beings.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by besson3c

You don't actually *know* whether people in this forum are safe driving their SUVs, you just assume they aren't. This is where the conflict originates from.
!

That isn't the point. If they are safe drivers driving SUVs, they'd be EVEN SAFER drivers driving a car. It's about DRIVING WHAT YOU NEED, not driving something that the media and automanufacturer's have brainwashed you into thinking as 'active' and 'exciting', when it really isn't. Every SUV I've ever driven ahs been incredibly awful to drive, not what I'd call sport, active, or exciting.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

Have any links to back that up? I've always heard otherwise.

Sorry, no links - just experience.

There may be some correlation between this and the reason why off-road folks don't like ABS in muddy conditions. Suggest doing a search on that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

That isn't the point. If they are safe drivers driving SUVs, they'd be EVEN SAFER drivers driving a car. It's about DRIVING WHAT YOU NEED, not driving something that the media and automanufacturer's have brainwashed you into thinking as 'active' and 'exciting', when it really isn't. Every SUV I've ever driven ahs been incredibly awful to drive, not what I'd call sport, active, or exciting.

I tried to explain, and I obviously didn't connect with you. Do you really want to try to understand my viewpoint, or would it not be worth my while to bother? Put yourself in my shoes for a minute, and consider the fact I'm lazy.. would it be worth my time to talk to you about this?

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Also, Rob,

You've been banned again. This means that the owners of this board do not want you here until you can convince them you should be.

Do you feel that self-righteous that you feel entitled to continue to use their services against their desires?

I was banned again because I was calling names and attacking Kilbey (who gets away with attacking me). I crossed the line quite far and attacked Kilbey's kids... why? Because he crosses the line constantly, only he does so in just very small increments. I'm sick of him gettin away with it, so I thought it was worth getting banned and losing my screenname. I really don't care if I get to keep any of these screennames, the only one that meant something was the 'cash68' nick. As for 'proving them that I should be allowed back', how can you do that when you have no voice? You can't. That's why when people get banned here, they just reregister. It's the way it works. Banning here does not mean exile, it means punishment.

[SuvsareRetarded]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I tried to explain, and I obviously didn't connect with you. Do you really want to try to understand my viewpoint, or would it not be worth my while to bother? Put yourself in my shoes for a minute, and consider the fact I'm lazy.. would it be worth my time to talk to you about this?

Knock yourself out, but I have to go do dishes and make dinner. Cya in a while.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

Another way I know: ten or fifteen years ago, there was no such thing as an "SUV."

Sorry, wrong. The Range Rover was introduced in 1970 - that's thirty five years ago.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SuvsareRetarded

I was banned again because I was calling names and attacking Kilbey (who gets away with attacking me). I crossed the line quite far and attacked Kilbey's kids... why? Because he crosses the line constantly, only he does so in just very small increments. I'm sick of him gettin away with it, so I thought it was worth getting banned and losing my screenname. I really don't care if I get to keep any of these screennames, the only one that meant something was the 'cash68' nick. As for 'proving them that I should be allowed back', how can you do that when you have no voice? You can't. That's why when people get banned here, they just reregister. It's the way it works. Banning here does not mean exile, it means punishment.

Why not learn to transcend and rise above things you are against? If you are against Kilbey crossing the line, that does not give you a free pass to cross the line yourself.

What screen name you get to keep is irrelevant. THIS ISN"T YOUR DECISION TO MAKE. This is not your bulletin board. If you want to discuss your being banned with a mod, you can do so without posting to the public forums, this isn't brain surgery. No offense, but frankly you sound like a little kid using some lame excuse to justify himself.

If banning didn't mean exile, wouldn't logic dictate that after a certain point of time you'd be invited back?

If a mod is reading: would you prefer for Rob to remain banned, or for him to decide when he has served his punishment?

When you were punished as a little boy, who decided when you had served your punishment: you or your parents? Around here, the mods and owners of this board are the authority figures, much like parents are.

[besson3c]

here goes nothing...

That isn't the point. If they are safe drivers driving SUVs, they'd be EVEN SAFER drivers driving a car. It's about DRIVING WHAT YOU NEED, not driving something that the media and automanufacturer's have brainwashed you into thinking as 'active' and 'exciting', when it really isn't. Every SUV I've ever driven ahs been incredibly awful to drive, not what I'd call sport, active, or exciting.

Whether they would be safer driving a car is irrelevant. Whether SUVs are a good ride is irrelevant. Whether people are brainwashed is irrelevant.

People are stupid, and they are going to do what they are going to do. Do you lecture smokers? People who do drugs? People who like to speed? People who have a little George Bush shrine in their homes?

Your opinions about SUVs are perfectly valid, but you have difficulty living with and tolerating people who disagree with you. Learn to know when to agree to disagree, and when to stop going on and on and on and on thinking that eventually people will believe you are right.

Also, recognize that while you must feel that the people you argue with are incredibly stubborn for not agreeing with you, recognize that you too are stubborn for continuing to press the issue. Just let it go.

[rozwado1]

We need a whole new forum dedicated to flaming on Rob.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by rozwado1

We need a whole new forum dedicated to flaming on Rob.

But as long as he insists on being so rude to people, he should host it himself.