quote:
Pvednes attempted to be funny by writing:
I exercise my freedom of speech, they exercise their freedom to drive a humvee. I don't like their use of their freedom, they don't like my use of my freedom.Where's the trouble? Where do utopian societies come into it?
The trouble is when you get all defensive and say people shouldn't berate you for exercising your freedom of speech. . .when those who berate you are doing nothing different from what you are. According to the internal logic of the campaign, you should politely acknowledge the error of your ways and quit flipping them off. Otherwise, you have to admit that your own campaign is futile and senseless.
The utopian bullshit is obvious in your assumption that ONOS HUMMERVEES AER THE DEVIL!
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Check out the big brain on Bloodsage!
The trouble is when you get all defensive and say people shouldn't berate you for exercising your freedom of speech. . .when those who berate you are doing nothing different from what you are. According to the internal logic of the campaign, you should politely acknowledge the error of your ways and quit flipping them off. Otherwise, you have to admit that your own campaign is futile and senseless.The utopian bullshit is obvious in your assumption that ONOS HUMMERVEES AER THE DEVIL!
There's the thing though...berating me for exercising my freedom of speech is also a perfectly acceptable exercise of freedom of speech. So is disagreeing with that; and that; and that. I recognise this. However, eventually someone is going to get sick of it and shut up, which is a better representation of the conclusion of this particular campaign with which your present interlocuter is in no way affiliated. Also, is a desire for my eyes not to be stung by peroxyacetylnitrates a narrow bias or self-righteous bullshit? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-28-2004 at 07:15 AM.
quote:
Pvednes wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Also, is a desire for my eyes not to be stung by peroxyacetylnitrates a narrow bias or self-righteous bullshit?
Actually it is, because you habitually choose to blame all the world's pollution ills on those who drive cars you don't like.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Actually it is, because you habitually choose to blame all the world's pollution ills on those who drive cars you don't like.
I mean, which? Actually, the problem of photochemical smog is mostly caused by motor vehicles. Especially cars with poor catalytic converters. All that ozone is part of why peak hour sucks so much... Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-28-2004 at 08:15 AM.
quote:
Pvednes said this about your mom:
I exercise my freedom of speech, they exercise their freedom to drive a hummer. I don't like their use of their freedom, they don't like my use of my freedom.Where's the trouble? Where do utopian societies come into it?
quote:
ACES! Another post by Pvednes:
I mean, which?Actually, the problem of photochemical smog is mostly caused by motor vehicles. Especially cars with poor catalytic converters. All that ozone is part of why peak hour sucks so much...
Than attack cars that were made before the current standards were put in place. I believe the year was 1975 and the remaining cars from this time do far more damage than even the worst SUV of today.
quote:
Azizza had this to say about Knight Rider:
The Freedom of speech gives you the right to speak out against or about the government. WHile I guess that also allows you to be a complete fucking idiot, it doesn't' give the right to go around randomly insulting people without consequence.
Actually, hypocrite, freedom of speech means the right to speak freely; which includes the right to speak out against or about the government. It is in no way limited to that.
Worst Thing is that the H2's only come with Gas engines, rather than the diesel the Orginal used.
The "energy shortage" is a complete myth. There simply is no reason to advocate energy conservation. If you're willing to pay for a lot of gas, go right ahead, it won't affect anyone but you in the slightest.
Claiming high gas prices are a result of hummers is complete bullshit as well; high gas prices are a result of market manipulation and price fixing by the OPEC monopoly.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Robocop:
1. N2(g) + O2(g) ----> 2NO(g)
2. 2NO(g) + O2(g) ----> 2NO2(g)
3. NO2(g) --[sunlight]--> NO(g) + O(g)
4. O(g) + O2(g) ----> O3(g)
5. NO(g) + O3(g) ----> NO2(g) + O2(g)
6. NO2(g) + O2(g) + Hydrocarbons ----> CH3CO-O2-NO2(g)Breathe it! Oh, wait...you already do.
Remember that oxygen is diatomic when not in a compound.
quote:
Upon learning of the existence of Natalie Portman's twin sister, Noxhil exlaimed:
Remember that oxygen is diatomic when not in a compound.
]The reaction of the singlet oxygen from the previous reaction, and the diatomic, atmospheric oxygen to ozone is so quick as to be almost instantaneous. You'll find that quite correct.
But hey.. Maybe I'm just courtious.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Tron:
1. N2(g) + O2(g) ----> 2NO(g)
2. 2NO(g) + O2(g) ----> 2NO2(g)
3. NO2(g) --[sunlight]--> NO(g) + O(g)
4. O(g) + O2(g) ----> O3(g)
5. NO(g) + O3(g) ----> NO2(g) + O2(g)
6. NO2(g) + O2(g) + Hydrocarbons ----> CH3CO-O2-NO2(g)Breathe it! Oh, wait...you already do.
I grew up in Southern California during the 1970s. I laugh at most air pollution. Oh, and you ignored the bit I said about the amout of pollution created by Hummers. They sold a whopping 300-400 the first model year, and probably don't sell more than a few thousand a year now, according to data from Simpson Associates. Given the small number of Hummers on the road, is it REALLY worth getting so worked up over, especially compared to the pollution from TENS OF MILLIONS of other cars, factories, chemical plants and petroleum refineries?
To put it in simple language everyone can understand; Sources of pollution I've pointed out--mountain. Source of pollution you've pointed out--molehill.
quote:
-Yuri- had this to say about Pirotess:
I don't flip people off in general because it's just a aggresive practice that leads to some things like road rage. I really wouldn't like a guy in a Hummer mad at me in my little tiny car.But hey.. Maybe I'm just courtious.
That reminds me of yesterday. I was driving somewhere and I came up to a stoplight. I was turning right, and because it was a big intersection I spent a little extra time checking to make sure I could turn, since the light was red. The guy behind me honked. I turned, and then he turned. He pulled around in front of me, I think by chance, and I was sitting behind him at the next stoplight. He was digging around in the seat behind him when the light changed, so I honked at him. He started driving a bit and then slammed on his brakes. Fortunately, I don't tailgate, so I didn't run into him, but what a jackass.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Pvednes:
I want air that doesn't burn the eyes and lungs. So sue me.
You have zero concept of how cars are made if you think that a H2 produces more pollutants than other vehicles just because it's large. All cars sold in the US must pass EPA and manufacturer regulations when it comes to how much exhaust they put out.
Your average midiszed car and an H2 put out damn near the same amount of pollutants.
If you're going to argue clean air, you should be fighting against all auto's, not just the H2 because it's cool to hate them.
The blaim for the conservationally, enviromentally, and generally condemable vehicles doesn't belong to the owners of such vehicles, but to the legislators that refuse to push legislation making motor companies smarten up and be able to give us, within the next ten years, "Yuppie Land Yachts" that get 32 miles to the gallon and severely decreased pollutant output.
quote:
A sleep deprived Reynar stammered:
You have zero concept of how cars are made if you think that a H2 produces more pollutants than other vehicles just because it's large. All cars sold in the US must pass EPA and manufacturer regulations when it comes to how much exhaust they put out.Your average midiszed car and an H2 put out damn near the same amount of pollutants.
If you're going to argue clean air, you should be fighting against all auto's, not just the H2 because it's cool to hate them.
The amount of pollutants is directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned; and the H2 takes about twice the fuel in half the time as the average car. As for your second point I suggest you go read the thread again. So yes, when the car companies are forced to make them get reasonable fuel economy, any further bitching will be about them being deathtraps on the road. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-28-2004 at 11:33 PM.
quote:
Callalron had this to say about Captain Planet:
I grew up in Southern California during the 1970s. I laugh at most air pollution. Oh, and you ignored the bit I said about the amout of pollution created by Hummers. They sold a whopping 300-400 the first model year, and probably don't sell more than a few thousand a year now, according to data from Simpson Associates. Given the small number of Hummers on the road, is it REALLY worth getting so worked up over, especially compared to the pollution from TENS OF MILLIONS of other cars, factories, chemical plants and petroleum refineries?To put it in simple language everyone can understand; Sources of pollution I've pointed out--mountain. Source of pollution you've pointed out--molehill.
"Flip off a petroleum refinery" doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Optimus Prime:
The amount of pollutants is directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned; and the H2 takes about twice the fuel in half the time as the average car. As for your second point I suggest you go read the thread again.
Callaron has it right, the amount of H2's out there is such a small fraction of total cars, that their total pollution is beyond small.
And yes it's directly proportional, but some cars pollute less per gallon of gas then other's do depending on the model and year. So just because X car and Y car get different MPG, the X car with fewer MPG's does not necessarily pollute more than the Y car.
quote:
A sleep deprived Reynar stammered:
Callaron has it right, the amount of H2's out there is such a small fraction of total cars, that their total pollution is beyond small.And yes it's directly proportional, but some cars pollute less per gallon of gas then other's do depending on the model and year. So just because X car and Y car get different MPG, the X car with fewer MPG's does not necessarily pollute more than the Y car.
As was said way back, it's about all yuppie land-yaghts. Not just the H2. No, the X car with fewer MPGs pollutes more, because the waste products of the reactions within the internal combustion engine, even when not NOX, are pollutants. The choice is between primary and secondary pollutants. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-28-2004 at 11:52 PM.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Pvednes:
.No, the X car with fewer MPGs pollutes more, because the waste products of the reactions within the internal combustion engine, even when not NOX, are pollutants. The choice is between primary and secondary pollutants.
No, a car from 1970 that gets 20mpg will pollute more then a car from 1975 that gets 10mpg. You aren't taking into account that over the years there have been massive reforms in cleaner burning cars. Cars pre-1972 had basically no restrictions, after that, engines were totally re-designed in order to meet the new EPA laws.
They have also been re-designed several more times over the years to adapt to the ever changing clean air regulations. 1 mpg of a 1995 doesn't equal 1 mpg of a 2004 pollution-wise. Also, different models of cars give off different amounts depending on the internal standards of the company.
quote:
Reynar impressed everyone with:
No, a car from 1970 that gets 20mpg will pollute more then a car from 1975 that gets 10mpg. You aren't taking into account that over the years there have been massive reforms in cleaner burning cars. Cars pre-1972 had basically no restrictions, after that, engines were totally re-designed in order to meet the new EPA laws.They have also been re-designed several more times over the years to adapt to the ever changing clean air regulations. 1 mpg of a 1995 doesn't equal 1 mpg of a 2004 pollution-wise. Also, different models of cars give off different amounts depending on the internal standards of the company.
The different models give off different proportions of the various pollutants, some pollutants more unpleasant than others, but it's always in direct proportion to the fuel burned.
quote:
Pvednes painfully thought these words up:
The different models give off different proportions of the various pollutants, some pollutants more unpleasant than others, but it's always in direct proportion to the fuel burned.
Yep, I agreed with that a few posts ago. It's just that the formula for the amount of pollution put out by the engine changes with any given car, depending on how they designed it/what current laws are in effect.
quote:
Callalron had this to say about Pirotess:
Only if you also flip off Saabs and Volvos.Them's some butt ugly cars.
New Volvos aren't ugly. They stopped being ugly in 1998
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Pvednes said this:
So yes, when the car companies are forced to make them get reasonable fuel economy, any further bitching will be about them being deathtraps on the road.
Do you always swallow enviro-idiot propaganda whole?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
Do you always swallow enviro-idiot propaganda whole?
No, I judge issues on their own merits, as I see them. Do you consider a vehicle excluded from mandatory safety tests due to sheer size; that rated terribly in the way of steering, handling and braking in the various performance reviews, a particuarily safe vehicle? I do not. *shrug* Granted, my views are coloured by my own "petty" biases, but there you go. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-29-2004 at 02:39 AM.
So if you wanna use the whole "Flip off the H1/H2 because it over polutes the environment!" then you are way of base, and should actually be flipping off all the Honda Civics, Sedans, or family minivans on the road which lack this capability. 
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Cuba:
No, I judge issues on their own merits, as I see them. Do you consider a vehicle excluded from mandatory safety tests due to sheer size; that rated terribly in the way of steering, handling and braking in the various performance reviews, a particuarily safe vehicle?I do not. *shrug*
That's a crock right there. It's a different TYPE of control, but it is far from unmanagable. They are not excluded from saftey tests either, they are excluded from the Standard Insurance Accident test. They are still tested and re-tested as much as any vehicle on the road today. They also have the prestige of being based off (At least the H1 anyway) military design elements.
Just because some soccer mom can't handle the vehicle correctly, so claims it is terrible in steering and braking, does not make the vehicle a bad one. For one the braking system on the H1 is phenominal, and the control is excelent, especially concidering the amount of terrain capability and handling potential it has.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris Model 2000 was programmed to say:
That's a crock right there. It's a different TYPE of control, but it is far from unmanagable. They are not excluded from saftey tests either, they are excluded from the Standard Insurance Accident test. They are still tested and re-tested as much as any vehicle on the road today. They also have the prestige of being based off (At least the H1 anyway) military design elements.Just because some soccer mom can't handle the vehicle correctly, so claims it is terrible in steering and braking, does not make the vehicle a bad one. For one the braking system on the H1 is phenominal, and the control is excelent, especially concidering the amount of terrain capability and handling potential it has.
Who're you more likely to meet on the road in Yuppieville in one of these, the offroad enthusiast, or the yuppie and the soccer mom?
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Pirotess:
No, I judge issues on their own merits, as I see them. Do you consider a vehicle excluded from mandatory safety tests due to sheer size; that rated terribly in the way of steering, handling and braking in the various performance reviews, a particuarily safe vehicle?I do not. *shrug*
Granted, my views are coloured by my own "petty" biases, but there you go.
You've got most of your facts wrong.
Those based on truck chassis have a different set of mandatory safety requirements that must be built in. Most of them go far beyond that.
Nor do they avoid crash tests--as a matter of fact, most larger vehicles (as you would expect) do better in crash tests than the micro-miniature eco-friendly tin cans you seem to want everyone else to drive.
All the hoopla about rollover and steering is simply propaganda waged by idiots who can't seem to get it through their skulls that trucks handle differently from cars. One has to seriously drive like an idiot to cause any of these factors to come into play. . .and one can kill oneself doing that in any motorized vehicle.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Nobody really understood why Bloodsage wrote:
You've got most of your facts wrong.Those based on truck chassis have a different set of mandatory safety requirements that must be built in. Most of them go far beyond that.
Nor do they avoid crash tests--as a matter of fact, most larger vehicles (as you would expect) do better in crash tests than the micro-miniature eco-friendly tin cans you seem to want everyone else to drive.
All the hoopla about rollover and steering is simply propaganda waged by idiots who can't seem to get it through their skulls that trucks handle differently from cars. One has to seriously drive like an idiot to cause any of these factors to come into play. . .and one can kill oneself doing that in any motorized vehicle.
Hmm, in which case can you recommend some decent places to get the facts; aside from the various consumer's guides I was looking at? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-29-2004 at 03:10 AM.
quote:
Pvednes enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Who're you more likely to meet on the road in Yuppieville in one of these, the offroad enthusiast, or the yuppie and the soccer mom?
You don't have to be an offroad enthusiast to learn to handle a different handling vechicle. It handles different period, but it doesn't handle WORSE, just different. If someone driving one can't handle it, again, that is NOT the fault of the vehicle now is it? No. Aaaaand the logic you are applying here applies to ALL vehicles, not just large ones. Any car can cause massive damage, even if you don't think about it. In fact a Motorcylist can cause MASSIVE mayhem on the roads if they weren't smart enough to learn to handle it correctly. There are lots of yuppies who but motorcycles too for the cool factor (Far more than do Hummers, since you know, Motorcylces are in a LOT more people price range) and they may not know how to drive one as well as they think they do, and can cause serious problems on the roads. No, the vehicle DIRECTLY would have little impact on anything, but because they are small, and if you go down on one you go down fast, it can cause serious accidents where as a Hummer would just barrel through only causing major issues with its initial contact victim.
Being a Motorcylcist, I think Sage could vouche for how much different a Motorcycle handles from a car, and that if you don't learn how to ride one properly it can have consequences. So why not apply that logic to motorcylces? Or Jeeps, you know that have a high tip over rate because they handle differently from a car as well, but they are small and have good MPG, just handle much differently. Or busses, or big-rigs. Both of which you will see SHITTONS of on the road more than you will a Hummer, and are LARGER without the EPA saving standards, and are also commercially available to public drivers. Or maybe a Camper. A LOT of yuppie, soccer moms, and old retirees drive campers/RVs, WAY more than Hummers... and talk about something that drives like a brick and sucks up gas with shitty EPA values.
And if I had my way, the roads in city centers would be replaced about entirely with trams...which coincidently appears to be slowly happening.
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about the Spice Girls:
And if I had my way, the roads in city centers would be replaced about entirely with trams...which coincidently appears to be slowly happening.
May sound like a good idea on paper, very bad idea in practice. Very bad. Congealing everything and everyone into an entirely tram system is downright impossible and a catastrope waiting to happen.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris's fortune cookie read:
So if you wanna use the whole "Flip off the H1/H2 because it over polutes the environment!" then you are way of base, and should actually be flipping off all the Honda Civics, Sedans, or family minivans on the road which lack this capability.
35-40 mpg cars are definitely the big wasteful ones out there. Oh man, those pollution-spewing Civics.
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris probably says this to all the girls:
May sound like a good idea on paper, very bad idea in practice. Very bad. Congealing everything and everyone into an entirely tram system is downright impossible and a catastrope waiting to happen.
Actually it's working quite well so far in practice, which is what I'm saying there. Downright unpleasant if you try to drive though the city central though. Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-29-2004 at 03:28 AM.
