My original Gore criticsm post did spur a few responses that I followed up on. Sorry if it's only late at night or early in the morning. I've been working hard installing a new bottling line at the brewery that I work at. What you call inciting I call challenging

I'll go back to my first post.

I'm even more happy to say I got 31.3mpg on my last tank. With an estimated 40/60 city/highway and epa of 21/27 averaging 24.6 my 31.3 is 27% better than EPA. I'm a fuel economy geek that would love a hybrid option from a pickup, and I'm considering lowering mine 3 inches on a quest for better FE. My wife drives the Element and doesn't care about gas mileage. The log shows some tanks in the 28-30 range when I get a chance to drive.

I like the hybrid technology, and this site is an easy source for what's new, and real world results, not the mass media spin, though I am humored by the defensiveness found here. I have to defend buying a 2wd truck that I'm happy to drive with passenger tires instead of a lift kit and 33s.

I must come across as more confrontational than I think, but I do like to challenge other's opinions, but I don't think I ever raise my voice. While scrolling through my old posts looking for flame baiting I did find another post of your's related to Antarctic Warming where my response was similar to the polar bear article, the time frame given ignores the temperatures of the 30-40s to make conclusions that don't make sense to me. I can't understand why you take offense to me challenging an article you posted? You posted it as though it was the absolute proof of something that I just don't see reading the same article. OMG I'm thinking like Bill O'Reilly "Tell me where I'm wrong"

I may have gone overboard with someone who was for population control, and did receive a PM from a moderator on that one, I'm not proud, but do find the idea of forced population control extremely repugnant.

Peace

 

I don't know how you read that. There was an unwritten "you do" in the sentence, as in, "... as stupid as you do." Should we self-censor and say "silly" or "wrong-headed" or...?

Just curious.

 

Myself and many others go quiet in situations like this to reduce the tension and annoyment. Some might have agreed on some points except this thread has become too confrontational, even insultive - again time for a rest and healing.

Anybody can find discrepancies or something to nitpick forever.

The best and probably only way to show your good will, worthwads is leave this thread alone the next evening - do something else.

The adage of the moment is "Silence is Golden".

 

Now, I believe the topic of this thread is worth a few minutes of silent thought as well.
For those of us who believe that taking the warnings concerning Global Warming is, at its worst, erring on the side of safety - where do we go from here?
How many of us actually feel like adding a little more to the momentum and maybe even starting something positive.

Is owning a FE Hybrid (or clean Diesel) vehicle any more than a selfish attempt at looking morally superior? Quite often I try to convince myself that I am doing more than "most people", but deep down and privately, I can't help to feel that I've taken an easy road towards a compromise of some sort.

Anyhow, are there any groups, movements and/or initiatives bent on building a community of individuals that will help "evangilize" the long term benefits of Fuel economy?

In my view, it would be a shame to have this issue fade into obscurity as many things do with time. As it is clearly evident, there are a few folks who choose to resist the notion of GW or even the possibility of it. I believe that in light of the potential risks, we need to do better and not just sound smart and eloquent in special interest forums?

Do I make any sense? If I don't, then pardon the interruption and let's go back to the silence.

Regards;

MS

 

The unwritten should always be written in debates on internet message boards, especially when ambiguity allows for a completely different interpretation.

The statement was viewed as in, "you and the commercials are equally stupid.", personal insults are not tolerated here, and the moderators here recieved complaints about the post, so clearly others interpreted the same way I did. It's not that he said stupid, but that it was taken as an insult to another user.

Now, that said, we've gone 7 pages. At this point, the discussion has drifted rather widely off topic. If the discussion doesn't return to the topic, this thread may be closed.

 

Alright then, back on topic here's what Ron Bailey thinks, Science Correspondent for Reason magazine, a non-partisan magazine promoting liberty and individual choice.

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb061606.shtml

If you read the article click on the red highlighted phrases for further information.

I plan to see the movie this sunday.

 

The corollary, of course, is that due to the nature of computer-mediated communication, one should assume nothing and err on the side of the other poster when in doubt. Even from multiple re-readings, I don't get the sense he ever intended it as a slight against anyone... it was just poor grammar, which we've all been (and will be again) guilty of before.

I ran a hobbiest Bulletin Board System for 5 years back in the late 80's. This is nothing new. Like driving, assume someone isn't out to get you unless they prove otherwise, in which case it's time to go to neutral corners and get patched up and move on.

 

that's why smilies were invented- to convey unwritten context that cannot be duplicated in text without explicit (and time consuming) description.

Of course, if we were less cynical as a culture we wouldn't be having this side-thread at all. But that's another thread for another board.

 

Smileys don't always work, and that's been the case since they were just ASCII characters on-screen:

Thus, my original comment about erring on the side of other humans is key, emoticons/smileys or no.

(That last smiley is a cyclops... long before Monsters, Inc. )

 

What's A rapper with her hat to one side?