Date:         Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:54:14 -0700
Reply-To:     gary hradek <hradek@YAHOO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         gary hradek <hradek@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      emission ethics
Comments: cc: kr2no@EARTHLINK.NET
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Scott and Joy,
             Get off your high horse and sell your
vangons as they are gross polluters when compare to
the eurovan.   I drive my vanagon for camping only but
I feel no need to dictate when and how other should
drive their vanagons.   I offer help on how to keep
them working not spirtual help on the ethics of
smogging them.   Sound to me that retarding the
vanagon a bit will drop the NOX.   I hope this is the
conclusion of this thread.   I would know very little
about shooting police as this is so far off base from
what this list is about I would not think of such a
thought.   But if my NOX was a little high I might
want to retard my engine just a bit and sleep a little
better a night knowing that someone on the list was
smart enough to make this suggestion.
              many thanks to the list and everyone has
a right to their sense of ethic, just don't force it
on others please.   Joy and Scott to the world, gary
Date:    Sat, 28 Aug 2004 10:39:46 -0400
>From:    Scott Norville <kr2no@EARTHLINK.NET>
>Subject: Re: emission ethics
>
>Similarly, we should offer no guidance if someone on
the list were
posting
>queries or instructions for shooting cops while
stealth camping in a
Walmart
>parking lot.
>This is an issue that has more ramifications than
just flauting unfair
laws.
>On an legal level you are beraking laws if you make
"temporary"
changes to
>pass emissions; on an ethical level you are not being
honest with
yourself
>or your fellow humans; on a moral level you are
contributing to the
more
>rapid decline in the habitability of this planet; and
on a practical
level
>you are contributing to the more rapid decline of
your beloved van.
>As others have said, not passing emissions (or any
part of the safety
>inspection) is usually a sign that something is wrong
with the van (or
the
>testing equipment), not a sign of intrusive
government. Yes, the
things that
>go wrong without you knowing it are often expensive,
annoying and
>aggravating to fix, but better now than when you drop
a valve from the
lean
>mix or get stranded in the mountains with a clogged
cat.
>If you want to live where there is less "intrusion"
by government you
have a
>wide sheaf of choices. Look at some of the places Joy
works: the
lovely
>clear air of Cairo, for instance. Or you could just
move to the less
urban
>areas of the US. Oh, you like living in the congested
areas with lots
of
>other people? Then you have to learn and play by the
rules that have
been
>developed to allow humans to live close together.
>Everything a rational human does is a compromise.
Some of us choose to
drive
>our buses from a preference for its utilitarian
Teutonic style,
capacity and
>endurance, but I doubt if many on this list drive
theirs because it is
the
>only vehicle they can afford--there are many cheaper
vehicles to
acquire and
>maintain, even many other VWs, within legal limits.
Like Joy, I drive
mine
>when I need two portable bedrooms with a kitchen and
use something
more
>efficient for other running around.
>
>So, I'll stop my rant here with a summation: we are
members of a
>civilization, with the privileges and
responsibilities that entail, or
we
>are barbarians.
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:15:49 -0700, gary hradek
<hradek@YAHOO.COM>
wrote:
>
> >Joy,
> >   We need no ethical guidance on this list when it
> >comes to emission checks.    If you really push
this
> >issue you would not be on the vanagon list at all
but
> >you would be on the low polluting eurovan list.
> >There are many reasons people choose to handle a
> >vanagon problem the way they do.   We need to take
> >care not to judge them on this action.   Two
hundred
> >dollars may make the difference whether they get
> >enough to eat or not.
> >   I for one would like to know if advancing the
> >engine or retarding the engine will decrease NOX?
> >I thought an engine runs hotter when it is retarded
> >and thus NOX would be higher?   So what do you
think?
> >                   regards, gary
> >Date:    Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:25:39 -0400
> >From:    Joy Hecht <jhecht@ALUM.MIT.EDU>
> >Subject: Re: Failed Emissions Check
> >
> >Hi all,




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail