Date:         Tue, 3 Mar 1998 13:44:36 -0800
Reply-To:     Sam Scholten <vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Sam Scholten <vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY
Comments: To: Vanagon@VANAGON.COM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hey all you smog polemicists out there!

I don't think this smog thing is going to be easily resolved. The
reason is this: people arguing for either side are not arguing about
the same agenda. The environmentalists on the list support compliance
of the emissions laws, that I'm sure they supported, out of a
utilitarian drive to clean up the air around them for the benefit of
everyone. The anti-emissions law crowd is sick of those damn clogged
catalytic converters, myriads of vacuum hoses (which one slipped off
this time?) and the need for ECUs that do nothing but screw up all the
time. In addition, they don't like another law on their backs.

While I admit to taking a position- the utilitarian one- I'll have to
admit reading that thread is like listening to a debate between
evolutionary biologists and religious fundamentalists. The Darwinians'
arguments come from the discipline of science; the creationists'
arguments come from the discipline of the humanities. You will simply
NOT reconcile the two on a concrete level.

Same here- the debate here is utilitarianism vs.
disestablishmentarianism (I knew I would pull that one out sometime!)

Therefore, seeing that arguing this point is utterly futile, the best
we can do is make lemonade from the lemons and use the criticism as
constructively as possible- as an opportunity for education. What can
we learn?

For one, emission control equipment suffers from reliability problems.
Otherwise, few if any people would be bitching. Not to unfairly pick
on Scot Douglas, but even though I wouldn't be caught dead in a Dodge
Caravan, I encourage Mr. Douglas to make reliability in emissions
equipment a design goal. :) I understand this may be difficult, and
wish him the best.

For another, we need to approach emissions control laws intelligently.
The EPA ought to research its emissions requirements more thoroughly
before requiring them. I'm not a chemistry major, but I know that some
of their bright ideas could have been thought out a little better.

To close, in general, we all need to quit bitching and look for
constructive solutions to things. Debate and open communication is
healthy, but one-sided ranting and ad hominem arguments are not.

Best regards to one and all,
Sam
=
"Punk's not dead (it just sucks right now)"
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com