its just ethics, Kris.
I don't think your comments are fair. None of us can eschew all contact wth or reliance on motor vehicles or the oil industry- society at the moment isn't structured that way. All we can do is try to progressively reduce our own car use or pollution production, and encourage others to do the same, and Krispistoferson is moving in the right direction. First he got out of the car lifestyle, and hopefully next will move out of the car business. You Bek, probably consume goods brought by truck, or wrapped in plastic, and you've mentioned that you also drive, so like the rest of us, you're trying to minmize your impact but you can't do it alone or all at once.

I'm not critizing Kris, I think the less people use infernal combustion engines for personal use the better.

OK,a quick koan about ethics - Would a vegan work in a slaughterhouse? Ethics. It's not black and white, though, and there may be no right anwser.

For people in the Puget Sound area the reality is this, and maybe in many american cities too:
-The biggest contributor to pollution here is the family car.-
Cars are the culprit. It's not power plants. Its not industry. Its people in their cars.


Nonsense, how do people heat their homes? the heat source pollutes.
Working in a job, manufacturing...it's going to pollute somewhat.
Do you advocate cleaner cars, and using hydrogen/natural gas, or do you just hate the idea of someone turning a key and driving somehere? I suspect you want everyone who lives in the country either be people who grow food and never leave their property, or you want them shipped off to the city so the squirrels can jump from tree to tree in peace. Please give us your ideal US, Bekologist.
And by the way, whoever posted about Sault Ste Marie was right...it goes back to the 1600's..I;ve been there several times and it amazes me that it's been settled.discovered that long.

I don't think your comments are fair. None of us can eschew all contact wth or reliance on motor vehicles or the oil industry- society at the moment isn't structured that way. All we can do is try to progressively reduce our own car use or pollution production, and encourage others to do the same, and Krispistoferson is moving in the right direction. First he got out of the car lifestyle, and hopefully next will move out of the car business. You Bek, probably consume goods brought by truck, or wrapped in plastic, and you've mentioned that you also drive, so like the rest of us, you're trying to minmize your impact but you can't do it alone or all at once.


Now there's a well thought and pragmatic response, good job.

I'm not critizing Kris, I think the less people use infernal combustion engines for personal use the better.

OK,a quick koan about ethics - Would a vegan work in a slaughterhouse? Ethics. It's not black and white, though, and there may be no right anwser.


Strawman alert! No one likes working on the floor of a slaughterhouse, they do it because they need the money, Vegans have to feed their families too.

Well, usually vegans are vegans for moral reasons,(cuz it sure as heck ain't for their health ;) ) such as the belief that it is wrong to kill animals under any circumstances. I am car free for moral reasons, because I think cars are over-used in this country(as well as it saving me LOTS of money, and being healthier,), NOT because I think cars are inherently evil. This is an important distinction. I honestly don't mind it if people drive cars, and YES, some people drive out of necessity.

When Howard Kunstler's prophecies come true and we're all riding on the backs of dragons, maybe this will not be so, but as for now, (and I hate to bust anyone's bubble,) some people need their vehicles to maintain their standard of living. This is not to say that many people THINK they need a car and don't, for anyone who will insist on misinterpreting what I've just said. So to recap: cars not inherently evil, since they are an inanimate object, overuse of cars is not what I'd cal "evil" either, but the unintended consequences of this ignorance and or heedlessness about causality is what gives us our present situation.

Besides, even if I'm complicit in the rise of the Fourth Reich, we WILL eventually run out of oil, and then everyone will be happy. :beer: Oh, and look into the definition of a "koan" before you misapply the term again, Beko. ;)

Seig Oil!

koan was applied loosely. If a vegan complained about working in a slaughterhouse but the machinery was loud, what would the vegan hear?

And to rebut, as far as all the pollution watchdogs are concerned, private cars are the BIGGEST polluter of the Puget Sound region. I'm not going to bother trying to find any figures, but they throw the most particulates and noxious gases off in total tonnage compared to any other single combined source in the region.

Nonsense, how do people heat their homes? the heat source pollutes.
Working in a job, manufacturing...it's going to pollute somewhat.
Do you advocate cleaner cars, and using hydrogen/natural gas, or do you just hate the idea of someone turning a key and driving somehere? I suspect you want everyone who lives in the country either be people who grow food and never leave their property, or you want them shipped off to the city so the squirrels can jump from tree to tree in peace. Please give us your ideal US, Bekologist.
And by the way, whoever posted about Sault Ste Marie was right...it goes back to the 1600's..I;ve been there several times and it amazes me that it's been settled.discovered that long.
Usually I'm on these forums boring everybody with tales of how great Michigan is. I didn't have to this time.:) Sault Ste. Marie (we call it "the Soo") was the center of Great Lakes trade and economy even before the French arrived. The fur trade was a dramatic period of first contact between two great civilizations. Mackinac Island was the spritual center of that Great Lakes civilization. The Indians staged a lacrosse game outside the American fort, chased the ball inside the gates and captured the fort without firing a single shot. Very clever strategists. They eventually lost that war between old ways and new ways. The story was eventually repeated all over the continent.

Another great confrontation between old and new ways of living is taking place here now. Michigan is faced earlier than other places with the certain decline of petroleum and the possible demise of the family car. Keep your eyes on this state if you want to see what's going to happen in the rest of the country a few years later. It's pretty interesting.

Usually I'm on these forums boring everybody with tales of how great Michigan is. I didn't have to this time.:) Sault Ste. Marie (we call it "the Soo") was the center of Great Lakes trade and economy even before the French arrived. The fur trade was a dramatic period of first contact between two great civilizations. Mackinac Island was the spritual center of that Great Lakes civilization. The Indians staged a lacrosse game outside the American fort, chased the ball inside the gates and captured the fort without firing a single shot. Very clever strategists. They eventually lost that war between old ways and new ways. The story was eventually repeated all over the continent.

Another great confrontation between old and new ways of living is taking place here now. Michigan is faced earlier than other places with the certain decline of petroleum and the possible demise of the family car. Keep your eyes on this state if you want to see what's going to happen in the rest of the country a few years later. It's pretty interesting.


I love Non Detroit Michigan, especially the UP! SOme pretty tough winters up in the UP, but I go up for a few days every winter. Detroit is going to be a ghost town pretty soon.

. I'm not going to bother trying to find any figures, but they throw the most particulates and noxious gases off .


So, you are for CLEAN CARS and emissions testing, thanks for clearing that up :rolleyes:

Say ya to da UP, Eh?

(have tattoo of UP on left shoulder)

Give everyone in the cities an electric pod car, I think that'd be great!! The reason I'm not going to look up any figures about auto vs industrial pollution in Puget Sound is because it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE here. The private gas huffer is the big pollutin' kahuna.

Detroit already is a ghost town, in some ways. The downtown area is an amusement park with casinos, ballparks, people movers, etc. The next few milesw out are a burnt-over district, literally. The inner suburbs are OK, Royal Oak, Ferndale, etc, would work for a cyclist. The outer suburbs are the other type of wasteland--affluent, but with no sense of community or place, and totally unmanageable without cars. This was one of the great cities, the birthplace of the working middle class. Now it's almost dead.

And one of the all-time great ironies--it was the automobile that killed the Motor City!

Say ya to da UP, Eh?

(have tattoo of UP on left shoulder)


You moved away???

Ya sure you betcha. Skied to school, surfed Lake Superior, slept in snowbanks when I was too drunk to make it home from the bars (old woodsmans trick.) Pineing to return, someday, to watch my parents grow old gracefully, if we are lucky enough to make it that long!

I don't think your comments are fair. None of us can eschew all contact wth or reliance on motor vehicles or the oil industry- society at the moment isn't structured that way. All we can do is try to progressively reduce our own car use or pollution production, and encourage others to do the same, and Krispistoferson is moving in the right direction. First he got out of the car lifestyle, and hopefully next will move out of the car business. You Bek, probably consume goods brought by truck, or wrapped in plastic, and you've mentioned that you also drive, so like the rest of us, you're trying to minmize your impact but you can't do it alone or all at once.

Hmm, I think this is getting personal AND off the point. I can't speak for Bek, but to me - and I believe to many others - being "car free" has nothing to do with any use we may make of motor vehicles outside of our own personal travel. I don't feel less car-free because I take a taxi a few times a year, the UPS truck stops by my house often, or my groceries get delivered by car. I feel car-free BECAUSE all of that is done by means other than my use of a personal-use motor vehicle.

I feel this thread has gotten rather far afield. My belief - and I only speak for myself - is that the personal motor vehicle used in urban centres is the big problem. A farmer having a pick-up out in a rural area is not the big problem, neither are delivery trucks or city buses. The jerk who lives in the suburbs and commutes downtown every day in his own car, all by his lonesome, that guy is the problem. Yup, all internal combustions engines pollute, and we need to work on that, but that is a secondary issue.

A lot of people think I'm an environmentalist, but actually I'm not. What I am is a proponent of being a responsible human being, and I do not think using a personal car in urban centres can be justified as "responsible" - and the only reason it is seen as acceptable is because the harm you cause other people is so indirect that you can fool yourself into not seeing it. Would you keep driving our car in a city if you knew the name of the person who would die from your exhaust? No? How many people die in your city each year of causes related to smog? How many have to die before you leave the car at home?

Being a responsible human being also means living up to my own standards. I've turned down jobs because the client/employer was involved in something I would not support even indirectly, and I have no problems expecting the same from others.

Hmm, I think this is getting personal AND off the point. I can't speak for Bek, but to me - and I believe to many others - being "car free" has nothing to do with any use we may make of motor vehicles outside of our own personal travel. I don't feel less car-free because I take a taxi a few times a year, the UPS truck stops by my house often, or my groceries get delivered by car. I feel car-free BECAUSE all of that is done by means other than my use of a personal-use motor vehicle.

I feel this thread has gotten rather far afield. My belief - and I only speak for myself - is that the personal motor vehicle used in urban centres is the big problem. A farmer having a pick-up out in a rural area is not the big problem, neither are delivery trucks or city buses. The jerk who lives in the suburbs and commutes downtown every day in his own car, all by his lonesome, that guy is the problem. Yup, all internal combustions engines pollute, and we need to work on that, but that is a secondary issue.

A lot of people think I'm an environmentalist, but actually I'm not. What I am is a proponent of being a responsible human being, and I do not think using a personal car in urban centres can be justified as "responsible" - and the only reason it is seen as acceptable is because the harm you cause other people is so indirect that you can fool yourself into not seeing it. Would you keep driving our car in a city if you knew the name of the person who would die from your exhaust? No? How many people die in your city each year of causes related to smog? How many have to die before you leave the car at home?

Being a responsible human being also means living up to my own standards. I've turned down jobs because the client/employer was involved in something I would not support even indirectly, and I have no problems expecting the same from others.

You say pollution is a secondary issue. Then you whine endlessly about smog.If everyone drove very low emission vehicles...then what would be your complaint?
You just don't like that guy driving by himself??
You ask if we know how many people die in our city "because of smog"
Do you? LOL Didn't think so. cars are 20 times cleaner than they were 20 years ago and getting cleaner every year
You'd be more successful arguing the money to terrorists slant.
Admit it, you don't like seeing them when you ride your bike,
Just be honest, I can respect that.

You say pollution is a secondary issue. Then you whine endlessly about smog.If everyone drove very low emission vehicles...then what would be your complaint?

No, I do not say it is a secondary issue, I say it is not the only issue. If I wasn't clear on that before, consider the issue clarified. Quoting myself (from my site)

"It's not just the pollution, although that is bad enough. [Cars] also, to me, represent the selfish lifestyle of North Americans. All that metal, fabric, and plastic... all the energy required to make the things and maintain them... the living space they take over for parking and driving... all that tied up 24/7/365 for the personal use of one or two people?"


You just don't like that guy driving by himself??

There's plenty else I don't like: that exemple simply illustrates the problem well.

You ask if we know how many people die in our city "because of smog"
Do you? LOL

I've never seen city-by-city stats, though I have looked. From memory, about 2000 deaths/year in Ontario are attributed to smog, and about 10,000 illnesses. Car exhaust is one of the largest causes of air pollution in Canada, and in some areas the largest.


cars are 20 times cleaner than they were 20 years ago and getting cleaner every year

And are also more numerous, and still use space, plastics, metals, roadway...

Admit it, you don't like seeing them when you ride your bike,
Just be honest, I can respect that.

I was being honest. If you're such a fan of honesty, would you care to explain why you are being so hostile? Bad hair day or something?
:rolleyes:

And to rebut, as far as all the pollution watchdogs are concerned, private cars are the BIGGEST polluter of the Puget Sound region. I'm not going to bother trying to find any figures, but they throw the most particulates and noxious gases off in total tonnage compared to any other single combined source in the region.

...

The reason I'm not going to look up any figures about auto vs industrial pollution in Puget Sound is because it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE here. The private gas huffer is the big pollutin' kahuna.


If I may nitpick, that's a really poor way to argue a point. EVERYBODY KNOWS doesn't carry a lot of weight when you consider all the "facts" that everybody knows - head over to Snopes (http://www.snopes.com) for a bunch of examples. To quote a good line from a silly movie, "1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."

And really it's not that hard to find some info on this. According to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (http://www.pscleanair.org/whatcan/airchoice.shtml#Some%20things%20to%20keep%20in%20mind), you're not really correct. For instance (from the linked page), "Smoke from wood fires produces the majority of particulate air pollution in our neighborhoods during winter months." Do you have a wood stove, Bekologist? If not, do you think the environmental impact of the electric or gas production to run your heating system is better than burning wood? Or just better for Puget Sound, because the energy production is done somewhere else?

Frankly, you're coming across as a zealot, and an uninformed one at that. You're only going to turn people away like that, not convert them to the cause. If people are properly informed of their environmental impact, they may well take steps to reduce that impact. But if you just yell, "Cars suck, they pollute more than anything else, QUIT DRIVING!!" - well, that's not helping. Get some real facts, provable ones, and approach it knowing that it won't always work. Many people won't even want to hear it, some that do won't believe it, and a lot of the remaining folks just won't care enough to inconvenience themselves.

So, patc, to get back to Expat's original question, this is where the contempt comes from: uninformed zealots who reflect the contempt that their poorly-constructed arguments glean them from the "uneducated cager masses." Treat someone like crap too long, and they will treat everyone else that way too. It's just too bad that some people don't realize how damaging they are to the very ideals they are attempting to promote. (Or don't appear to care - "I'm not going to bother trying to find any figures.")

No, I do not say it is a secondary issue, I say it is not the only issue. If I wasn't clear on that before, consider the issue clarified. Quoting myself (from my site)

represent the selfish lifestyle of North Americans. All that metal, fabric, and plastic... all the energy required to make the things and maintain them... the living space they take over for parking and driving... all that tied up 24/7/365 for the personal use of one or two people?"

I've never seen city-by-city stats, though I have looked. From memory, about 2000 deaths/year in Ontario are attributed to smog, and about 10,000 illnesses.:

Oh, man, all that plastic in cars...I'll be up all night feeling guilty now..LOL :rolleyes:
I'd love to know how someone can attribute their death soley to car smog.
Come on brother, take off the hair shirt and put down the Chomsky.

The metal, fabric and plastic!! <Angst sound effects>

Kids used to suffer nervous disorders in inner cities until lead in gasoline was banned. Not quite as bad as dying, but a tangible cause and effect from auto pollution.

Diffuse pollutants from auto exhaust is likely a culprit or contributing factor in a LOT of disease.

Zeig Oil! Zeig Oil! Zeig Oil! (I just had to get that in there, it's not an indicator of my luddism.

Kids used to suffer nervous disorders in inner cities until lead in gasoline was banned. Not quite as bad as dying, but a tangible cause and effect from auto pollution..


Lead Gasoline has been banned for about 30 years or so.
Cars are like 20 times cleaner since those days.....bad strawman attempt.



Diffuse pollutants from auto exhaust is likely a culprit or contributing factor in a LOT of disease.

.

Because you say so??


. I'm not going to bother trying to find any figures,

The leaded gas wasn't a false argument but an example of pollution from cars being nasty. Nothing more. It sounds like smog kills 2000 in Ontario annually.

Yes. wood stoves produce the most particulate matter during the winter months. Pollutants like Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides and carbon monoxides are also pollutants, and autos produce far more of these pollutants. But good job hunting and pecking data to build up a false argument AGAINST the carfree ethic.

Yes. Home wood stoves should have catalytic convertors, and strict burn bans for cities prone to inversions (many western cities have toxic woodsmoke/car exhaust smog inversions) There are cleaner, greener ways to heat a home anyway, and using a clean natural gas furnace, or electric power, IS a cleaner choice.

Frankly, someone is coming across as an uniformed one about personal automobiles. Without getting into specifics, because to me it's NO argument, haven't you heard- "Cars suck, they pollute more than anything else, QUIT DRIVING so much!" :)

There are cleaner, greener ways to heat a home anyway, and using a clean natural gas furnace, or electric power, IS a cleaner choice.

The leaded gas wasn't a false argument but an example of pollution from cars being nasty. Nothing more. It sounds like smog kills 2000 in Ontario annually.


\:)

For one thing leaded gas has been gone for 30 years.

If all cars were switched over to natural gas...would that be OK then?
Seriously if you are comncerened about pollution, wood and coal stoves are where to start.
I asked how it could be proven someone died soley from car smog.
I don't think you care what's true.
I think you just like the way "2000 per year die of car smog" rolls off your tounge.
Same thing with "cars are the biggest smog producers in the bay"

"Smoke from wood fires produces the majority of particulate air pollution in our neighborhoods during winter months." Do you have a wood stove, Bekologist? If not, do you think the environmental impact of the electric or gas production to run your heating system is better than burning wood?
Forest fires have been happening for millions of years and nature is completely capable of addressing the seasonal and localized pollution from wood stoves. Admittedly if wood burning stoves deplete the forests we have a problem. The pollution from cars and the car industry is far more widespread and is year round and includes unnatural compounds like dioxins and PCBs. Here's (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/light-trucks-and-air-pollution.html) a source that tends to back up Bekologist's claims.
(EDIT) From this American site: "cars and light trucks are still the largest single source of air pollution, accounting for one-quarter of emissions of smog-forming pollutants nationwide."

The reason they banned lead as a gas additive is because it was a dangerous airborne pollutant largely atmosphere loaded by cars.

Yes. wood stoves produce the most particulate matter during the winter months. Pollutants like Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides and carbon monoxides are also pollutants, and autos produce far more of these pollutants.
Still not seeing any data to back up your statements.


But good job hunting and pecking data to build up a false argument AGAINST the carfree ethic.
Yes, you're correct, I am anti-car-free. That's why I belong to BF, and why I read and post to the Living Car Free subforum. Because I LOVE CARS.

Apparently you didn't read my whole post - that data is not presented as an argument against "the ethic" - the point was to show the fallacy of your argument. You make statements but do not back them up. Is it because you can't?


Yes. Home wood stoves should have catalytic convertors, and strict burn bans for cities prone to inversions (many western cities have toxic woodsmoke/car exhaust smog inversions) There are cleaner, greener ways to heat a home anyway, and using a clean natural gas furnace, or electric power, IS a cleaner choice.
Cleaner, as in less air pollution (sorry, particulate matter) in the area of the furnace, or as in, less environmental impact overall? Not that I think you know, or will bother to find out. For that matter, I don't know - I really don't have any idea. But that means I will not claim to know unless I research it.


Frankly, someone is coming across as an uniformed one about personal automobiles. Without getting into specifics, because to me it's NO argument, haven't you heard- "Cars suck, they pollute more than anything else, QUIT DRIVING so much!" :)
Well, let's see, if someone is coming across as uninformed, it must be the person who continues to claim facts without backing them up, refuses to do any research, and is shown to be making inaccurate statements. Hmmm...who here does that apply to?

Now, your last sentence I can finally agree with. "Because to me it's no argument..." You don't have to convince yourself, you already believe exactly what you belive, accurate or otherwise. This is true for everybody. But others do not - if you want to convince people that cars are bad, that bikes are better, that red is green, or that frogs eat giraffes, you must prove it to them. With accurate information, proven and provable.

Plus you finally eased off a little and said quit driving so much. Good job, that's one step.

Here is the report on smog and public health from the Ontario Medical Association. (http://oma.org/Media/news/pr050614b.asp)

Yes, you're correct, I am anti-car-free. That's why I belong to BF, and why I read and post to the Living Car Free subforum. Because I LOVE CARS.





How discussing a car free ethic degenerated into having to debate pollution specifics with someone that is admitedly and deliberately baiting the argument is beyond me.

Seig Oil!

Forest fires have been happening for millions of years and nature is completely capable of addressing the seasonal and localized pollution from wood stoves. Admittedly if wood burning stoves deplete the forests we have a problem. The pollution from cars and the car industry is far more widespread and is year round and includes unnatural compounds like dioxins and PCBs. Here's (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/vehicles_health/light-trucks-and-air-pollution.html) a source that tends to back up Bekoloist's claims.

That is a valid point, cooker. Good work doing the research bekologist refuses to, however, that article appears to be from circa 1998.

From the article:

"While new cars and light trucks emit about 90 percent fewer pollutants than three decades ago, total vehicle miles driven have more than doubled since 1970 and are expected to increase another 25 percent by 2010."

So they're not 20 times cleaner than 20 years ago, they're even "better" - but we use them more.

"As a result, cars and light trucks are still the largest single source of air pollution, accounting for one-quarter of emissions of smog-forming pollutants nationwide."

Assuming this is still close to accurate, some seven years later, it does indeed tend to back up bekologist's claim that cars are the biggest polluters of Puget Sound. Although it doesn't take into account any other sources of pollution specific to the area...

Here is the report on smog and public health from the Ontario Medical Association. (http://oma.org/Media/news/pr050614b.asp)


yep there it is, so what.

It says 5800 people had shortened lives due to exposure to air pollution
It doesn't attribute it to cars.
How many millions live in the province of Ontario?
How many people die from falling in the bathtub each year in that Priovince?

Watch out, its the BATHTUB GAMBIT!


(smoke from sophistry fires in the woodshed contributing to the overall smog problem.)

How discussing a car free ethic degenerated into having to debate pollution specifics with someone that is admitedly and deliberately baiting the argument is beyond me.

Here's the Google definition of sarcasm (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=define%3A+sarcasm&btnG=Search) for you. (Note the first entry contains "irony is wasted on the stupid.")

sometimes, people intending to be ironic are actually iconic.

Watch out, its the BATHTUB GAMBIT!


(smoke from sophistry fires in the woodshed contributing to the overall smog problem.)


Aty least i'm trying to figure pout what the real numbers are.
If it turns out 5 times as many people die from secondhand tobacco smoke, shouldn't that, in fact be your new "priority one"? Or are you just a politically fashionable college student?

sometimes, people intending to be ironic are actually iconic.

So my sarcasm failed, that much is apparent. But how does that make me like an icon? You look up to me now?

iconography isn't about heroes, you dolt!

It's symbolism in meaning.

And how in the heck does people smoking in bathtubs have ANYTHING to do with air pollution?

Can't hardly see the trees thru the smog...

iconography isn't about heroes, you dolt!

It's symbolism in meaning.

Iconic (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=iconic) also means "relating to or having the characteristics on an icon." An iconic figure is often a hero.

But I still don't understand what you mean if you're saying my comment was symbolic. I guess that's because I'm a dolt.

And how in the heck does people smoking in bathtubs have ANYTHING to do with air pollution?

Can't hardly see the trees thru the smog...
I'm sorry this thread has turned against you so badly, LOL. May I ask what is your profession, and how it does not support, directly or indirectly, the oil fascists/military-industrial complex? You seem to feel your sh!t doesn't stink, and will not stoop to give any facts or figures, which has got me wondering.... :)

I think it was Dale Carnegie that said "You mean what you say, when you say it and how you say it." But don't quote me on that.

To coppe, you sound like a real gas huffer. hence, symbolic of a car lover that wants to debate pollution minutae on a car free forum instead of the discussion of the contempt of car owners like expat had originally intended.

To Fx John, anytime someone uses the 'bathtub gambit,' honest discussion of the issues is NOT the intent, and we both know it. It's obsufucationist.


I'm not here to argue pollution statistics, this was a discussion of car free ethics. My shizzle definetly stinks.

But I do my part. We all should.

I think it was Dale Carnegie that said "You mean what you say, when you say it and how you say it." But don't quote me on that.

To coppe, you sound like a real gas huffer. hence, symbolic of a car lover that wants to debate pollution minutae on a car free forum instead of the discussion of the contempt of car owners like expat had originally intended.You sound like a troll who can't defend his position, and is now resorting to ad hominem attacks, which pretty well rounds out the list of logical fallacies you've used on this thread.

I think it was Dale Carnigie that said "You mean what you say, when you say it and how you say it." But don't quote me on that.

Ah. And don't worry, I don't plan on quoting you quoting anybody.

You sound like a real gas huffer. hence, symbolic of a car lover that wants to debate pollution minutae on a car free forum instead of the discussion of the contempt of car owners like expat had originally intended.

Actually, I haven't driven a car for several months now. As previously stated, I'm not linking to facts to debate pollution minutiae, I'm pointing out that your arguments not only aren't being backed up with facts, they don't seem to be able to be. And again, you've missed at least part of a post. Look back to where I posited the source of some people's contempt for cars. And your use of symbolic here doesn't quite make sense - perhaps you mean representative?

I'm like Spider Jerusalem - I'm just looking for the truth.

I'm no troll, oil boy. And coppe, the site you linked to pretty much qualified my assertions, as do other links in this thread about automobiles and pollution.

Leave the minutae to the belittlers.

I'm no troll, oil boy. And coppe, the site you linked to pretty much qualified my assertions, as do other links in this thread about automobiles and pollution.

Leave the minutae to the belittlers.
It's all right, you'll find a job if you apply yourself.

And coppe, the site you linked to pretty much qualified my assertions, as do other links in this thread about automobiles and pollution.
"Pretty much," huh? I guess that's good enough for you. Although it really only addressed your early claim re: cars and Puget pollution, not any of the other things you've said. As for the other links - again, you've missed points such as: the fact that one of the studies was at least 6 years old, likely 7 or more; and the other was on poor air quality, but made no mention of automobiles, or their contribution.


Leave the minutae to the belittlers.
Again, you've lost me.

And again, you've mispelled minutiae.

This is getting a bit repetitive.

Hey kris, I see you've changed your description. Awesome.

I think beko is exercising his right to make sweeping generalizations that "everybody knows" is true, as well as his right to insult anyone who calls him out on it. There's nothing of substance in his posts, and he is obviously not interested in discussing anything, so why not just ignore him for the rest of the thread? Boy's got a headful of crystallized dogma, and anyone who argues with anything he says gets the nazi-imagery invoked on them, so Godwin's Law says he's disqualified.

Yeah, I was thinking of changing my description to "dolt" but maybe it should be "Hitler" instead. Any more posts by bekologist here I'll likely read for the laughs, but I think I'm about done arguing. Reminds me of a joke I'm sure you've all heard. The wording is arguably insensitive, but it contains a kernel of truth.

you guys ARE a bunch of dolts, but misled!

I could care less if you refuse to accept common knowledge about automobile pollution. You expect me to dig up facts about facts?? WHY??? I'm not here to prove anything, I'm here to voice my OPINION.

You want to argue about how cars MIGHT NOT BE SO DIRTY it like care are Ponce DeLeon's chariot or run on cold fusion....or that its okay to compromise your beliefs for money.

so i mispelled minutae, so what? You are blindsided by use of words like iconography, attercopp. are you busy using a dictionary to dissect my posts? Do you need some comprehension assistance? Seems that way, because you can't read the facts about car pollution.

you guys that want to defend you sucking tailpipe for work, go ahead, oil boy.

Why do vegans work in abbatoirs, anyway?

My first couple of posts to this thread pretty much said my piece, and then the skeptics from the peanut gallery wanted to argue specifics about the sanctity of automobiles.

You guys must be getting dizzy from all the Carbon monoxide you've been huffing.