MOH Forum: SOLUTION TO HIGH GAS PRICES

SOLUTION TO HIGH GAS PRICES

Posted By:
JC16291
Mar 25, 2005

DEAR VICTOM OF FUEL BARONS,
Gas prices have sored upward for the past several
months and they don't seem to be leveling off anytime
soon. I suggest a gas boycott to take place the first
weekend of August 2005. The start date of the boycott
will officially be MIDNIGHT August 5 and will end on
MIDNIGHT August 8 2005. The best way for this to work
is to get the message to THE MAJORITY OF people THAT
we can and to do this we need TO WORK TOGETHER.
Forward this email to everyone in your address book,
tell all your friends and family. On August 5-8 of
2005 we are not going to buy any gasoline for four
days. If you have friends in the press/media let them
know about this boycott. Tell them we are sick of
being robbed by the oil barons. Tell the world, that
on August 5-8 of 2005 we are not going to buy fuel.

For an added bonus I suggest everyone call in sick on
Friday the 5th and Monday the 8th and not even drive a
Motor Vehical for the four day boycott. I understand
that this is not likely to happen but it would
definately be the first of its kind and you would have
the satisfaction of knowing you were a part of it.

make t-shirts and buttons AND GIVE THEM AWAY. Lets
make it a national holiday. NO MORE HIGH GAS PRICES
WEEKEND.

The time is now and we ARE THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT
NATION, IT IS TIME TO UNITE AND STAND UP FOR OUR
RIGHTS FOR AFFORDIBLE GAS PRICES. Do not hesitate to
click forward and add names in your address book and
click send, it is so easy. Then on August 5-8 of 2005 DO YOUR PART AND
simply make plans to stay at home, take a walk, ride a
bike or any other activity that will assist you in not
driving a motor vehicle.
copy and paste this to every forum board, in everyemail you send. spread the message as fastest you can.

sincerely,

Travis Stutzman

Category: Money; Replies: 45

Comments

Katherine	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 04:36 PM ...
The Curator in San Diego Member	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 05:55 PM It's Not One Damn Dime Day all over again. But now it's, Not One Damn Gallon Of Gas Day.
JC16291.	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 06:03 PM Im a moron, someone should punch me in the head.
Evildream	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 06:03 PM ^ me
Hairy Houdini	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 06:12 PM I'm sorry, I just can't see how punching morons in the head is a solution to high gas prices... I don't get it- HEY- stop punching me- cut it owww
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 08:10 PM WAKE UP PEOPLE!! Aren't we forgetting the real culprit here. The government could easily cut those heavy gas taxes since they are getting far more revenue than originally counted on. In Canada, 45% of the price of gas is tax. There is even tax on some of the tax! Government at all levels have learned that gasoline is the perfect conduit for siphoning tax money from the people. And they are only too glad to let the oil companies take all the blame.
Katherine	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 09:03 PM Or even better, we could learn to use alternate fuel sources, as petroleum is not a renewable resource. But no, we couldn't allow that because gasoline sales are far too profitable...
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:10 PM Petroleum is SO a renewable resource. Absolutely. It's just that it takes so long to form that we are depleteing it faster than we use it. There is, by definition, no such thing as a non-renewable resource. Everything on the planet is constantly forming, unless we remove the environment that it forms IN.
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:29 PM WOW. Google "Travis Stutzman", which is the name of the guy who supposedly wrote the above spam request. There's a few badass TS's out there.... Everything from bomb making to child molesting. Not saying this is the same guy, I was just curious as to see what showed up. And a lot did.
Katherine	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:30 PM Well, if we just revert to bicycles for all our transportation needs for the next few million years, all of our petroleum problems will be solved! No worries! As the kids say, "In the long run, we're all dead." Or was that Keynes...? 😊
Katherine	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:31 PM P.S. Because Travis Stutzman is such a common name...like John Smith, really.
Katherine	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:37 PM Oooh, I always hate when people do this, but: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nonrenewable resource Quote: "any natural resource that cannot be replenished by natural means at the same rates that it is consumed." Rah! Oh, the common usage, it slays me...
Katherine	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:40 PM That link didn't go right...<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nonrenewable resource">does this work</a>?
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 \| 11:48 PM Katherine, the dictionary is my bit. Get yer own act!
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 12:07 AM Okay. From the same dictionary. <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=non">Non-</a> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=renewable">Renewable.</a> The last time I checked, 'non' plus 'renewable' equalled nonrenewable. So, if the definition of 'nonrenewable' is right, well, then this dictionary cannot be trusted, now can it? Not all of these three definitions can be correct. Nonrenewable would mean that it could NEVER be replenished. Oil can. It just takes thousands of years, like I said.
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 12:22 AM Direct from Encyclopaedia Britannica... "renewable resources include resources with widely different cycling times, some so long as to make the resources essentially nonrenewable. Fossil and nuclear fuels and minerals also exhibit a wide range of properties that affect their management. Fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, are the least renewable of such resources" Least renewable, meaning that they ARE renewable.
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 01:06 AM In general, dictionaries are both prescriptive and descriptive to some extent--prescriptive in that they tell you how a word should properly be used, descriptive in that they change to reflect common usage once it becomes prevalent. They have to strike a balance; they don't want language to be set in stone, and they want there to be change and growth as the language evolves. Yet at the same time, they don't want us to become a society of illiterate jackals...dictionary-compiling is a very tricky business. I would take it that the prescriptive part of the definition of "nonrenewable" is, well, "resources that are not renewable." However, the dictionary is descriptive when it invokes the common usage of "any natural resource that cannot be replenished by natural means at the same rates that it is consumed." Heaven knows most people here have heard that usage, and if it's deemed to be prevalent enough to be put in the dictionary (the entry in question is culled from a Webster's dictionary, which is generally considered fairly reliable), then it's not "incorrect." Language isn't always like mathematics; a + b doesn't always equal a-and-b; sometimes it equals q! Just think of pine + apple...goose + berry...grape + fruit. Sometimes the component parts of a word have very little to do with the meaning of its entirety. I hope that doesn't come off as too rude, but do you see what I mean at all?
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 01:13 AM From the Encyclopedia Britannica (article?) you quoted from: "renewable resources include resources with widely different cycling times, some so long as to make the resources essentially nonrenewable." I would assume that such is the origin of the common usage: ESSENTIALLY nonrenewable, meaning that it's not practical to think that they will be renewed in time for them to be really useful to mankind at any time in the remotely forseeable future. On the one hand, it's not correct to say nonrenewable, as it will be renewed eventually. But on the other hand, it's perfectly correct to say nonrenewable in the popular sense of "cannot be renewed quickly enough to be practical." So...yes and no is the answer? :coolsmile:
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 01:24 AM intelligent nonintelligent sense nonsense abusive nonabusive The prefix non- added to any word means NOT "that word" It can not be any simpler than that. Common usage of a word does not give that word a new meaning. Take the word gay for example. The way it is used today can mean many things, but that does not negate the original meaning. New usage may ADD to that meaning, but it can't change the essential meaning itself. The meaning of the prefix 'non' and the word 'renewable' do not change when added together. If they did, that would mean that the original meaning of one of the root words is then wrong. Do YOU see what 'I' mean? P.S. I just previewed my post, the words at the top were picked off the top of my head, and did not relate to what you said, I hope you don't take them that way, as they kind of seemed that way when I re-read them. Sorry, offense was not meant by my examples. And I feel I must leave a quote here... "Can it be semantics generating the mess we're in?" - nofx
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 01:45 AM No, the prevalent usage of the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" doesn't change the original meaning of the word ("light-hearted, happy"), but it adds another correct way to use it. So it's correct to use gay to mean homosexual, AND it's correct to use gay to mean happy. They're not mutually exclusive. There is nowhere off in the clouds someplace where the word "gay" has this ULTIMATE, ESSENTIAL MEANING FOR ALL TIME. It has the way it was originally used, which is perfectly correct, and then it has additional--equally correct!--meanings that it has acquired over time. The correctness of the original usage is not altered, but there are additional, equally correct ways of using the words. "The meaning of the prefix 'non' and the word 'renewable' do not change when added together. If they did, that would mean that the original meaning of one of the root words is then wrong." I have no idea what you mean by this. Why would this necessarily make them "wrong"? What exactly do you mean by "wrong"? Strictly speaking, the usage nonrenewable as in non + renewable is incorrect because petroleum will eventually renew itself. But this is over a period of millions of years, which, as the article you quoted notes, makes it ESSENTIALLY nonrenewable. That is the way "nonrenewable" is popularly used--"renewable, but it takes so long that it's impractical to depend upon anyone using it within the near future." This very common usage is NOT incorrect, either. The two meanings of "nonrenewable" are not at all mutually exclusive. It can mean either "not + renewable" or "not renewable effectively speaking within the near future" and both can be equally correct depending on what you mean to say, just like gay can be used differently depending on whether you're referring to happiness or homosexuality. "I just previewed my post, the words at the top were picked off the top of my head, and did not relate to what you said, I hope you don't take them that way, as they kind of seemed that way when I re-read them. Sorry, offense was not meant by my examples." Ahahahaha. You know, I would never have noticed that if you hadn't so discreetly pointed it out...
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 02:14 AM "Strictly speaking, the usage nonrenewable as in non + renewable is incorrect because petroleum will eventually renew itself." - Katherine That's all I was trying to get across. All I kept saying was that the word nonrenewable made no sense in this case, because eventually, it would be replenished. "The meaning of the prefix 'non' and the word 'renewable' do not change when added together. If they did, that would mean that the original meaning of one of the root words is then wrong." - Moi What I meant was that if the word and the prefix added to together gave it a different meaning, then that would have to mean that either the root word's meanings had changed, or the meaning of the prefix has changed. Otherwise, the new word would have to have the literall meaning of the original two. As for the word gay, I used it as an example because it's original usage (as far as is known) is ~lighthearted. Then it was used to define homosexuality. Its new prevalent usage defines gay as stupid (ex. this is so gay). I picked it because it shows three changes, two of which were from common usage. As for the p.s., I just didn't want you to take my choice of words wrong, I was just trying to head off any potential problems by being up front about it, although from reading your previous posts, I didn't really expect any. But, you know, just in case. 😉
thunder in England Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 07:52 AM save gas. fart in a jar. might come in handy one day 😛 fart powered cars, i can smell 'em already!
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 08:20 AM "All I kept saying was that the word nonrenewable made no sense in this case, because eventually, it would be replenished." And what I mean to say is that the popular usage of the phrase "nonrenewable resource" to mean "ESSENTIALLY nonrenewable resource that cannot be practically replaced within the near future" is equally as correct, depending on what you mean to say. "What I meant was that if the word and the prefix added to together gave it a different meaning, then that would have to mean that either the root word's meanings had changed, or the meaning of the prefix has changed. Otherwise, the new word would have to have the literall meaning of the original two." Changed in what way??? Changed in popular usage, or what? I still have no idea what you mean.
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 08:51 AM If 1 + 2 were to truly equal 4, then the meaning of either 1 or 2 HAD to have changed to make them equal 4. If non + renewable were to truly mean "NEVER renewable", then the meaning of either non or renewable HAD to have changed to make them equal to "never renwable". Get me now? From my profile... "Rod is sometimes quite eloquent, but sometimes comes across with his ideas about as well as a retarded clam after a visit from The Ether Bunny." 😉
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 04:01 PM I don't think that is necessarily true, though. It's perfectly possible that a whole compound word could gain a new meaning through common usage after the word has been in use for a while; that way, it's the compound word that has changed, and it's nothing to do with the component parts of it changing meaning. The only real-life examples of this I can think of are hopelessly vulgar ones, so let's make one up instead of sharing things that Alex would probably frown upon. 😊 Now, we have the word "mockingbird", which is comprised of the parts mocking + bird--a bird which mocks. But let us suppose that through the process of slang, "mockingbird" comes to mean--oh, I don't know--stolen property. So the individual parts of mocking + bird retain their distinct meanings, but it's the compound word that has gained an additional and different meaning, completely separate from the components' meanings. I'm sure there are nonvulgar real-life examples of this, but for the life of me I can't think of any...
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 04:39 PM "I'm sure there are nonvulgar real-life examples of this, but for the life of me I can't think of any..." - Katherine A word that has a meaning differnt from the sum of its parts and is commonly used in a different way would be a slang word. This would be why you can't think of any examples that aren't vulgar. (Either that, or your mind is in the gutter, like mine 😉 ) I am assuming, of course that the examples you wouldn't use were George Carlin's fifth and sixth of his list of seven words you can't say on tv? How about carpetbagger? It's the only one that came to mind, but it too is slang. I'm sure I'll come up with more in the days to come...
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 04:52 PM Shhh...don't assume. :red: And there's nothing at all wrong with slang; it produces some perfectly valid new meanings of words. Not to mention that there's a very fine line between formal language and slang; today's slang is tomorrow's mainstream speech. Hmm, I don't know about carpetbagger...
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 05:43 PM I never said that there was anything wrong with slang. People should look at how words are constructed, and not just take the slang or popular use of a word as the literal truth of what the word means. Ex.) Asskisser. The person usually does not actually kiss asses, literally. Nonrenewable does actually mean not renewable, but oil products ARE renewable. The only truly non-renewable resources are the raw elements themselves. My basic beef here was that nonrenewable was being applied to something that actually IS renewable. That was the whole point I was trying to get across.
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 05:55 PM And my point is that it's equally correct to refer to petroleum as a nonrenewable resource, since the common usage of that term means something like "a resource which is essentially nonrenewable for use within the remotely forseeable future because we go through it much faster than it's produced."
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 06:10 PM Just because something is "almost" something else, does NOT mean that it is. It would be like saying that someone's food is cooked, and when they get it, it's still partially raw, and then the cook defending himself by saying "But it's almost cooked, and that's the same thing." It's NOT the same thing. Just because enough people misuse a word to make it "common usage" of that word does not mean that that is the proper usage for that word. The word nonrenewable means, literally, NOT RENEWABLE. Oil is a renewable resource, eventually. That's why I keep saying that yes, it is renewable. Using nonrenewable to describe something that IS renewable makes no sense, and this just goes to show that common usage of a word can be quite wrong usage of a word. Just because it is in common usage does NOT mean that oil has suddenly become a nonrenwable resource. "Strictly speaking, the usage nonrenewable as in non + renewable is incorrect because petroleum will eventually renew itself." - Katherine
Katherine	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 06:22 PM Agh, I'm not doing this anymore...we're arguing in circles. Suffice it to say that I think both uses are equally correct (nonrenewable to mean not renewable AND nonrenewable to mean effectively nonrenewable) and leave it at that.
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 \| 06:38 PM It's a done deal. 😉
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 \| 08:06 AM Ha! I get paid the 4th. So, essentially, I won't be buying gas on the 5th-8th. I didn't participate in NODDD, b/c it happened on a paycheck date & I had to buy stuff. But I'll be participating in this b/c of a pay date. Ohh...but then I realized it said don't drive to work. To hell with that! I won't have an absence roll off until Sept. (There is one that rolls off in May, but not enough to get me off this verbal warning!) ::sigh:: one more "let's show them" sort of protest I won't be able to participate in b/c I can't put my own life on hold.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 \| 04:59 PM Argh, why do people think they can spark some great social change on-line? The revolution will not be televised, as they say, and it won't be emailed either.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 \| 09:35 AM ...I didn't wanna spark social change. I don't want my gas to spark either...EEsh.
Myst Member	Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 \| 01:06 PM Save gas, buy a horse.
???	Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 \| 06:07 AM BACK IN THE 70S, GAS WENT UP KIND OF LIKE IT IS DOING RIGHT NOW.... PEOPLE GOT ANGRY SO IN A PROTEST PEOPLE CAME TOGETHER AND BLOCKED OFF THE HIGHWAYS BY JUST PARKING AND SITTING THERE....COPS DIDNT KNOW WHAT TO DO BECAUSE FRANKLY, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ARREST HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE SO IN ABOUT AN HOUR THE PRICE OF GAS WENT DOWN.. THE PEOPLE WON. INTERESTING HUH. SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE.. THIS CAN HAPPEN AGAIN AND WE WILL WIN AGAIN. THE OIL COMPANYS ARE JUST SEEING HOW MUCH WE WILL TAKE AND I SAY THIS HAS BEEN ENOUGH. INSTEAD OF WHINING AND COMPLAINING LETS TAKE ACTION.. UNLESS YOU WANT TO GET ROBBED OF EVEN MORE OF YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY. CMON PEOPLE IT IS UP TO US, THE GOVERNMENT ISNT RAISING JOBS OR MINIMUM WAGE FOR US TO AFFORD THIS SO WE MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO OUR OWN HANDS
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 \| 06:58 AM Mmmm, shouty. I just wanted to add that I think the original piece would be a hell of a lot clearer and more concise if the author had decided to spellcheck. Plus I love the 'call in sick' suggestion. We want to make a stand for cheaper gas, but are not willing to expend a little effort in being reliable and getting to work by use of public transport of any kind! Go us! By the way, I realise that some people need their car to get to work, but most don't.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 \| 09:30 AM I could take a bus for about 4 miles, but I'd have to walk the other 3. Aint gonna happen. Not at 6 in the AM anyway. I didn't realize this was spam until later...I confused it with the other gas thread...
Steve Anderson	Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 \| 09:32 AM I find it odd, that people can't put it all together, why gas prices are so high.. If people understood how shady the Bush Administration (I'm talking about both the president and vice president here), they would understand the "real" reasons" behind the gas prices.. You must understand, that the higer the gas prices, the richer both of them and their business partners become. Has everyone forgotten, that both President Bush and Dick Cheney ran, and still have strong ties to Oil Companies? Why can't people put all the building blocks together and see the whole picture? Don't they realize everything this administration does, has "alternative" business motives that benefits them, while scamming the general public? Does anyone really not believe, that the true reason we went to war with Iraq, was so they could have control their oil? The more they can limit and control our oil supply, and portray false propaganda, the richer it makes them and their oil business buddies. Its a fact, the "higher" oil/gas prices, the richer the President and Vice President will become? Doesn't anyone think its odd, that they brag about their little tax cuts to the "general" public, yet everything else is "taxed" more? Was it really a tax cut, or just a reroute of our taxes? Whatever makes them look good I suppose.. I can't believe people buy into their and the medias' lies, just because their want to say their "hardcore" republicans. I work in Marketing/Sales, and I understand their political tactics. They like to persuade public opinion in their favor, by using "emotional" and moral persuasive tactics, to draw in moral and religious (which is 70% of the general public) people on their side. These so called "emotional" and moral issues, are just a concealer, to try to make the Democrat party look evil, and the republican party look like god's "chosen" one. As soon as they get you pulled on their side, the more they can get away with. All I can say, is don't be so trusting of this party.. Everthing they do is strategic, and has an alternative motive. They come across as "religious" and "moral" buffs, however its just the false image they portray. In fact, we have our hands on more oil than "Ever" in history, so it makes no sense for us to pay so much for gas.. Its all about lies and false propaganda. Iraq, Kuwait, not to mention the Bush Administrations "Saudi Arabian" buddies, can provides us more oil than we could ever need.. We can get oil cheaper than any country! We actually have enough oil in just Alaska and other US states to supply ourselves if not the whole world. Does anyone really think that these so called "Social Security Investment Accounts", don't benefit the Bush Administration? I guess no one really knows his history, and how much in handoffs, the Investment firms would be willing to pay him, if they could only control the countries retirement income. Haven't they got enough of our money with our IRA and 401k accounts, which some many millions of us have lost money in not so long ago? I must ask this, if 48 of the 53 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and 5 were Afganistan, why did we put 95% of our effort in Iraq after 9/11? It seems, that the only thing we really did in Afganistan, is build an oil pipeline, to transport oil more efficiently? We know Weapons of Mass Destruction was all a Bush Administration lie, and "nobody" can or ever did prove they had ever had any.. We know the neither the Iraq govt was involved, and none of the hijackers were from Iraq, so why did we go to war with Iraq, and not Saudi Arabia? Is it because it was one of the last Middle Eastern "oil" enriched countries the Bush Administration didn't have control of? Seems odd, that both him and his father had the same objective, but for two different reasons.. However, there's only one thing that hasn't changed, its about the control of oil!
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 \| 09:32 AM As I said Maegan, I realise that some people need their cars to get to work. I wouldn't want to walk three miles at 6am (Yikes, by the way) either. 😊
Rod in the land of smarties. Member	Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 \| 11:10 AM So, let me get this straight... George Bush is causing the price of gas WORLDWIDE to rise? The damned fool can't get anyone anywhere to agree on anything, but according to your theory, he apparently runs the whole oil industry, even though you acknowledge that he no longer owns any oil companies. All you are saying is "because he's in power, I blame HIM." You offer nothing except a vague conspiracy theoiry based on nothing except your own idea of what is fact, and NO PROOF. So, how were the gas prices for the last 20 years influenced by him, and why? Convince me.
Robert Chapman	Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2005 \| 08:19 PM I have a solution to high gas prices, dont buy anything for three to six days. Havent you ever noticed when the gas prices go up the retail sales drop, and it gets peoples attention and gas prices begin to fall. In my houshold we have stop spending as much at the stores, due to high gas prices. I have commited myself to a total vegan diet, I have cut my grocery bill by at least $200.00. Meat stinks and its bad for you anyway and its too high. I would suggest quit eating meat for your health and your pocket book, YOu will feel a lot better.
Dave	Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 \| 11:04 AM I think if we boycott one brand of gas every week {unless they go to $1.50 agal.}It would be powerful.
Kosmo in trouble most of the time Member	Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 \| 01:26 PM I know the real reason gas is so high now - I heard it on the news Monday night. Get this (paraphrasing): "Experts indicate that the recent rise in fuel prices is due to elevated costs in transporting it". I kid not - I about fell out of my chair. If this were true the price would never stabilize! BTW, I take a bus to work (~30 miles)

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.