Thank you.

Just want to point out a few things:

first, the article was writen in 2002, but references "Who killed the electric car?"?!?!?!? seems a bit fishy to me, as that movie isn't nearly that old...

Second,

Um, say what? How can this possibly be validated? i gaurantee you that, somewhere in this nation right now, there is a large patch of corn dying. is it due to increased global temperatures? probably not... instead, look to droughts, heat waves, etc... in other words, natural occurances. besides, how does he know that the farmer didn't pass away or something, and no one was there to take over for him, letting the fields go unwattered, etc.

Third, in 2002, i don't think anyone had even heard of E10, let alone E85... this was a very recent development nationwide...

fourth,

Sounds a little fishy to me... but if Detroit adds it, it still won't effect Toyota's!

fifth,

So where's all this extra oil going to be coming from to drive us into this problem? granted, we all know that the oil is going to run out sooner or later... but do they expect world wide oil consumption to double? where's that extra production going to come from? oh, i forgot, the oil faries in the middle east will just drop down a few dozen extra production plants. sheesh.

uh-oh... i hear a sales pitch coming on...


Honestly, i'd like to believe the intentions of this article were good/pure. however, by interjecting pure crap designed to instill fear and incite panic in its readers, i completely lost all faith in the message they were trying to get across, which was to strive to increase your mileage. good message, bad delivery. If any of my old teachers were grading this, they'd give it an F, which i think is too good for it.

*edit*
I'd also like to point out that yes, i realize that some of what was said was factual in basis: E10 does lead to less mileage, as Ethanol has less energy in it than normal gas. but, and this is a big but, if this leads to E100 (ie no gas, all ethanol vehicles), the mileage would be horrible, yes, but it would be a renewable energy supply for our cars. i hope for EV's, i'm sure they'll get there first, but this is simply another scientific path.
Additionally, we all know that Oil is critical to keeping our engines alive... however, i'm not willing to take the word of one article that this huge conspiracy to reduce the quality and function of the oil exists. I'd need to see more proof, coming from well known, renowned companies that these changes had negative, not positive effects.

 

I just have to dismiss any article that's this one-sided. There's always two sides to a story, and if you present one - well then you're just grinding your own axe. If you don't acknowledge the other side at all, then you're just being disingenuous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Aug 22 2006, 01:57 PM) [snapback]307785[/snapback]</div>

According to IMDB it came out in 2006, so sounds like at least the date on the article is faked.

As to the rest, despite that it may actually have some actual facts scattered through it, it looks like a classic piece of disinformation to me.

 

Why all the edits from the OP?

 

I hope this isn't a trend; posting dubious articles, getting us to comment on them, and then erasing the evidence. Does the first responder have to quote the entire original post, just to make sure it won't disappear?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Randy G. @ Aug 22 2006, 03:57 PM) [snapback]307853[/snapback]</div>

You could have just kept it there for posterity's sake (and so everyone who's just coming into the thread knows what the article was about) and posted a reply/followup stating that you didn't particularly agree with or subscribe to some or all of the things mentioned in the article...I post articles all the time that I don't always agree with (usually in the Prius & Hybrid News forum) because it has something to do with hybrids/Prius in general, whether the info is correct or not...that way PCers get to have a blast ripping the author apart & pointing out inconsistencies in the article(s).

 

Wow, that was easier than I thought it would be. And for the record, I do not agree with what the author has to say...

 

Randy:

just because you post an article here does not mean you have to agree with it to any extent.

some of the best literature seminars i've attended started with the speaker presenting the paper, then at the end saying "well, personally, i think it's a load of crap." :lol: it stimulates interesing discussion.

 

Consider your pant leg duly sniffed and pissed on, Randy. Feel free to post whatever insanity you want - everybody else does - but quote the source, give us a link, and state whether you agree and why. Argue from several angles if you like, but please don't erase the post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 22 2006, 05:30 PM) [snapback]307920[/snapback]</div>

LOL, I wouldn't have put it quite so, uh, eloquentely, but I totally agree!

 

I hope my post didn't have anything to do with you feeling the need to remove your posts... i was ripping into the article, like many people do here (it's almost common place to post articles to allow people to rip into them). i then noticed you were a new poster, so i added the edit to (hopefully) show i didn't necissarily disagree with it, just with the way the author was trying to persuade people to his point of view.

Please, post more. it was possibly the most stimulating experience today :-p