Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 17:12:11 -0700
Reply-To: Scott McDonell <scott@KONNECTIONS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Scott McDonell <scott@KONNECTIONS.COM>
Organization: Sage Group Utah
Subject: Re: SHUT THE HELL UP ALREADY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gee, Sam, you use a lot of big words and phrases for someone whose
footnote references punk. If you weren't a fake, you'd be nihilistic
enough to let the smog debate go on, as it should. The cat-gutting
freeman already threw in the towel, so I say let Scot and others finish
wiping up the mess he left behind.
By the way, a bit of pedantry: myriads is not a word.
Scott
Ogden, Utah
'86 GL Syncro
'59 Splittie
'96 Jetta GLX VR6
'83.5 GL
> Sam Scholten wrote:
>
> 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
| 
