Wishfire

Trivia Leader
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    5,009

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Wishfire

  1. Posted · Edited by WishfireOmega

    No one is obligated to respond to every point of a post

     

    No, but that doesn't mean that it's acceptable to cause drama over a perceived slight.

     

    - and I did respond to the main point you were trying to make.

     

    Not by a long shot. The main point I was trying to make is that something has to be done about about our dependency on petroleum fuels, and that something might not be something that we all like. You obviously missed it, though.

     

    Seriously, you made the comment you must have wanted me to notice.

     

    Several, actually. Apparently you didn't notice them, however, considering that instead you noticed the least important statement.

     

    As for your other "points" - you state 4 ten hour days...

     

    Funny how they suddenly become ten-hour days. I thought you were talking about regular eight-hour days, so I responded as such.

     

    ...lower productivity as if it is a fact yet many places have already used this option to reduce spending. Kentucky was the first to use a four day school week many other school districts in other states have followed and there's no decrease in performance but definite savings in tax payer dollars. Other places have used it as accomodation to valued employees.

     

    I've never even heard of such a thing. Care to post some links?

     

    I know from personal experience that that hour or so after 5:00 is actually the most productive time of the day because the phone isn't ringing - you can get much more done .

     

    That's only true because of the way are work days are set up. If they change, so does the validity of that statement.

     

    Ttrying to solve every problem by creating a new tax is killing this country. One of these days the working class is going to crumble from the weight.

     

    I never said that new taxes is always the solution.

     

    There are many, many, many things we could to reduce consumption - but no one really wants to make us less oil dependent - that oil companies lobby too hard to prevent that they just want to appear to be helping.

     

    That doesn't prevent other people from stepping up and trying to make a difference.

     

    As regarding the discusison of alternate fuels - ethanol - which may or may not reduce our oil dependence is going to lead to a food shortage - food prices are rising; farmers are opting out of growing wheat to grow corn for ethanol instead. With more corn being used for ethanol there is less for the market and corn is a major food source for livestock so higher corn prices will equal higher meat prices and it goes on and on and on. Which isn't necessarily bad - Americans need to eat less and eat less meat - however the rising prices of wheat have made less available to charities serving third world countries - and those people don't need to eat less.

     

    Yes, I agree with that. That's another reason I don't support ethanol production.

     

    Ethanol, hybrids etc are methods of alternate fuels but if TPTB really want to help - they'll help find ways to reduce consumption.

     

    And that's the purpose of this tax.

  5. Posted

    Hybrids are a joke. It actually takes more energy to make ethanol than it does to make gasoline. Ethanol is not the answer. Fuel cell cars are the future but refueling stations have to be in place before these cars can really impact the usage of gasoline.

     

    Hybrids =/= ethanol. Though I do agree that ethanol is a waste of effort. Personally, I think that diesel is the best next step. While diesel has been in use for the better part of a century, mostly in trains and larger trucks, it's about as cheap (or expensive, depending on how you look at it) to make as standard gasoline, it burns slower, giving it more mileage, and, if you're stuck somewhere with no diesel anywhere to be found, you can dump some vegetable oil in the tank as a handy temporary (maybe permanent?) replacement.

  6. Posted · Edited by WishfireOmega

    So, you're opposed to this because... it inconveniences you. :laugh:

     

    Now you've gone beyond being argumentative just to disagree with me to being personally insulting. I am just one example of the many, many people in this country who live on the margin and are suffering from the current economic downswing spurred by rising fuel and food prices. Friends, family & co-workers and strangers all over the country would be hurt by this - and no one would be helped. I know you've indicated you were once in financial difficulties - has your situation improved so much that you've lost sympathy for the working masses?

     

    First of all, I never argued with you "just because." I argued with you because I actually do disagree with many of the things you have said, and have disagreed with similar ideas before you said them. On the other hand, if, in the course of a debate, I agree with something you say, I will say so. Much like I did in my last post.

     

    Secondly, if you think that I'm "being argumentative just to disagree with" you, then I can say the same exact thing about you.

     

    Thirdly, I couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored every other thing I said. If you have no actual responses to my comments, either say so, or just don't respond. But don't try to drag the debate down the wrong path.

  7. Posted

    It's a good idea. Hopefully it will get more people interested in looking at alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient cars.

     

    If TPTB really wanted to reduce consumption they'd look at 4 day work weeks, telecommuting, and informing people that eating locally grown foods would do more to reduce consumption than taxing gas.

     

    Four-day work weeks aren't viable unless you don't mind productivity decreasing, which can have a negative impact on the economy. Either that, or companies will hire more people, which can actually increase fuel consumption. Either way, it's not a good idea. As for telecommuting, that's already becoming increasingly popular. I agree about the local foods.

     

    Something like 40% of fuel consumption in this country goes to shipping food across the country - so people in Florida can eat California oranges - goodness knows we need them here.

     

    That's not actually so bad when you consider the weight-to-fuel-usage of freight liners. Trains, more so than freight trucks. Freight trains have the best fuel economy, which means that they can transport more weight for less fuel.

     

    And where do they plan to spend the tax revenue - not for anything useful I'm sure - more pork barrel politics.

     

    Instead of just complaining about it, why don't you try to find out?

     

    As for driver's behavior - the irony is that anyone that can afford a hybrid really won't be dissuaded by the rise in gas - but people like me who have to commute to remain employed are going to be priced out of being able to maintain a living. And I drive an old civic with many, many miles that gets 40mpg - I can't downsize anymore. This guy is a jerk - he just wants more money for congress to spend while giving the appearance of being enviro-friendly.

     

    So, you're opposed to this because... it inconveniences you. :laugh:

     

    You make it sound as if hybrids are expensive. The average hybrid goes for about $21,000, with several new models expected to start between $12,000 and $15,000.

  9. Posted

    like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

     

    The story about Prince Harry in Afghanistan was blown by Matt Drudge, an American website operator.

     

    The British press maintained a 100% blackout on the story.

     

    The Drudge Report article you make reference to was published on Feb. 28. The Australian magazine New Idea published Prince Harry's military status on Jan. 7, well over a month before the Drudge Report.

     

    Yes, but the Australian story passed without much notice.

     

    It was the Drudge Report which gained the most attention. They picked up the story and posted it online.

     

    That's because for some reason everyone pays attention to the American publications. If people payed attention to Australian journalism (or European, since the German publication "Bild" also reported on Prince Harry in Afghanistan before Drudge did), Drudge's report on the situation would've been mostly overlooked as old news.

  10. Posted · Edited by WishfireOmega

    Your Test Scores

     

    trekkiness: 150

     

    The Trekkie Test

    ranks me as a(n) Captain

     

    What does it mean?

     

    You are a Trekkie, through and through! You know the series, the movies, the literature, the science, and you are proud of it! You are probably saving up to buy your own starship! You are part of a vast community of Trekkies, and you're loving it! Congratulations!

  17. Posted

    like you brits never cease to amaze me. blowing prince harry's cover...clever. j/k, it's not directed at you personally cara. so im sorry in advance.

     

    The story about Prince Harry in Afghanistan was blown by Matt Drudge, an American website operator.

     

    The British press maintained a 100% blackout on the story.

     

    The Drudge Report article you make reference to was published on Feb. 28. The Australian magazine New Idea published Prince Harry's military status on Jan. 7, well over a month before the Drudge Report.