Do bicycles and cars mix?

Enough_Already,

How do you feel about mountain biking? I bought my little brother a
mountain
bike (i.e. I bought myself a present) and have been dabbling my toes
in the area between the Ohio & Erie Canal's towpath and canal bed.
It's a rather enjoyable sport...

People may be moving around but the U.S. population is still growing
by about 3 million annually, and people like you are in no hurry to
apply the brakes. "It creates jobs" is the typical excuse of the
growth-addicted. They don't like to ponder the question of why those
jobs would be needed without population growth in the first place. Too
heavy a concept to think about anything but unending growth. The Bible
mandates it, too.

How do you propose to get rid of this population growth? Tighter
Mexicanb
order controls? (By the way, what's the Bible got to do with this?
Perhaps you should start railing against the Koran, too; you could
more easily interpret it as advocating large family sizes as well.)

How many people would you like to see in America by 2050? I think this
country was plenty crowded with 200 million people. Do you think the
quality of life will improve with 400-500 million? Do you know what
causes traffic jams and long lines? Do you know what "finite" means?

Nobody goes there. The lines are too long.

Do you ever envision a stable population? Ardent watchers of GNP
growth and housing starts sure don't. Are you the slightest bit
concerned about the ongoing destruction of nature to accommodate
growth? I see little evidence of that in your post.

Perhaps a move to Russia would be more to your liking. Their
population is
not growing.

Joshua Rodd

In article ,
(Enough Already) wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote in message
hlink.net...

No sprawl in the USA?! Who are you trying to kid?


No one. Farmers are sprawled. Urbanites live in areas of extreme
population concentration.

If Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Denver, Sacramento, Atlanta, etc.
are examples of sprawl-lessness, what's an example (to you) of an area
that DOES have sprawl? Antarctica is not a valid contrast, you know.

This photo (see 2035 x 1581 version) is an undeniable case of sprawl
and gross overpopulation:

http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?7897 (Phoenix, AZ)

The caption refers to Phoenix as a place that consumes "an acre of
desert an hour," which, even if not literally true, is a good
description of how it feels down there. The lack of water to support
all that growth is brushed aside by idiots as a "shortage" of dams and
canals.

"Consumes," "shortage," "sprawled," anecdote, alarmism. Appeal to
emotion in order to eschew the FActs. The plural of anecdote is not
evidence. Present some data to support your fears.

On 29 Dec 2003 21:33:00 -0800, (Enough
Already) wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net...

In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.

It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped
up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious
recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem. It also says a

No, it shows the stupidity of people like you who argue that there are
too many people, except you don't count.

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 21:33:00 -0800, (Enough
Already) wrote:

"George Conklin" wrote in message
thlink.net...

In the end, the so-called anti-sprawl advocates end up by saying we
have
too many people in the USA and the world. But I don't see they are
volunteering to become a solution to their problem by eliminating their
life
so the rest of us can avoid more sprawl.

It was only a matter of time before that old suicide reference popped
up here. The irony of that cliche is that it shows a subconscious
recognition that overpopulation is indeed a problem. It also says a

No, it shows the stupidity of people like you who argue that there are
too many people, except you don't count.

Smart Growth is elitist. The elites don't ever count themselves in the
policies they advocate for the rest of us.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" wrote in message
k.net...

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 21:33:00 -0800, (Enough
Already) wrote:
snip

No, it shows the stupidity of people like you who argue that there are
too many people, except you don't count.

Smart Growth is elitist. The elites don't ever count themselves in the
policies they advocate for the rest of us.

You're is the only one making up the idea of Smart Growth being elitist.

In article ,
"Baxter" wrote:

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"George Conklin" wrote in message
k.net...

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 21:33:00 -0800, (Enough
Already) wrote:
snip

No, it shows the stupidity of people like you who argue that there are
too many people, except you don't count.

Smart Growth is elitist. The elites don't ever count themselves in the
policies they advocate for the rest of us.

You're is the only one making up the idea of Smart Growth being elitist.


Calthope and Knustler and Duany agree with George.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:39:57 -0800, "Baxter"
wrote:

You're is the only one making up the idea of Smart Growth being elitist.

What does "you're is the only one" mean? Is that idiot talk for
you're the only one, or elitist talk?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Coté" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Baxter" wrote:


"George Conklin" wrote in message
k.net...

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 21:33:00 -0800, (Enough
Already) wrote:
snip

No, it shows the stupidity of people like you who argue that there
are
too many people, except you don't count.

Smart Growth is elitist. The elites don't ever count themselves in
the
policies they advocate for the rest of us.

You're is the only one making up the idea of Smart Growth being elitist.


Calthope and Knustler and Duany agree with George.

Be my guest - post some examples of how Calthope and Knustler and Duany
think the ideal urban form is Georges 10-acre homesteads.

In article ,
"Baxter" wrote:

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Robert Coté" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Baxter" wrote:


"George Conklin" wrote in message
k.net...

"DTJ" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2003 21:33:00 -0800, (Enough
Already) wrote:
snip

No, it shows the stupidity of people like you who argue that there
are
too many people, except you don't count.

Smart Growth is elitist. The elites don't ever count themselves in
the
policies they advocate for the rest of us.

You're is the only one making up the idea of Smart Growth being elitist.


Calthope and Knustler and Duany agree with George.

Be my guest - post some examples of how Calthope and Knustler and Duany
think the ideal urban form is Georges 10-acre homesteads.


No, George said, "Smart Growth is elitist." I'm in no position to
follow your fantasies down the imaginary "10-acre homesteads" path. Do
try to read what was written not what you wish were written just because
even your limited intellect could handle it.

Calthope and Knustler and Duany agree with George.

In article ,
DTJ wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:39:57 -0800, "Baxter"
wrote:

You're is the only one making up the idea of Smart Growth being elitist.

What does "you're is the only one" mean? Is that idiot talk for
you're the only one, or elitist talk?

Just a typing/parsing error on his part. I do the same thing*. What
Leroy Baxter wants to say is that the implementation of Smart Growth is
not one of exclusion nor exclusivism. Leroy is wrong by the very words
of the leaders of the Smart Growth community and the FActs of SmUG
development history. Duany targets upper class demographics, Calthorpe
only pursues public projects and Knustler eschews subsidies of all
types.

[* The difference beig that Leroy seems to get the benefit of any doubt
in a.p.u and m.t.u-t.]