Curse

Hyper Fire · Sep 04, 2005, 02:52 PM // 14:52

Im Back Wazzup!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

dansamy · Sep 04, 2005, 03:01 PM // 15:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge Martinez

Best cars ever made have those 3.8 liter engines in them and they all get awesome gas mileage and have good power. 200,000 miles means that they're broken in.

I'm an idiot when it comes to cars. Enlighten me as to what vehicles were made with the 3.8? When did they abandon that engine?

Old Dood · Sep 04, 2005, 03:20 PM // 15:20

They have not abandoned that engine. It is in allot of GM cars. My two Buicks have that engine. It is one of the most stable and well enginered motors that GM has ever made.

Many car techs/mechanics have told me this. When I was looking for another new car a few years back, I was at the Cadillac Dealership looking at used Caddy's. I ended up buying a Buick Park Avenue off the lot. I was looking at a used STS with a Northstar engine. I really liked this car. Sharp, powerful, down right cool.....But after talking to my mechanic friends they told me to get the Buick. The Northstar engine will leak after 50K miles and it cost a ton of cash to pull the engine to fix it. In fact they said they ALWAYS leak something. So I bought the Buick. These mechanics that I have trusted for years told me that Buicks are the most reliable GM car.

I found this on the net. Thought it was interesting on the history of the 3.8 engine. http://www.gnttype.org/general/v6hist.html

Divinitys Creature · Sep 04, 2005, 03:30 PM // 15:30

Just wanted to throw out a little fact.EDIT: I shouldn't call it a fact since I didn't find a link.

A car generates more pollution during it's manufacture than it does during the whole course of it's lifetime in emissions.

I can't remember where I read that. But running older cars for longer saves from a whole new car having to be built. Big engines like v6s and v8s last longer and run smoother. If they mean you don't have to use a disposable car with better gas mileage you may be saving a lot of pollution. Also saving the cost of a new car to yourself.

UberRusty · Sep 04, 2005, 04:51 PM // 16:51

Guys, it all boils down to one thing. YOU SHOULD'VE INVESTED IN FUEL STOCKS.

AtomicMew · Sep 04, 2005, 09:40 PM // 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan2

I'd have to side with Xue Yi Liang on this one. Traversc, you pretty much come out of left field with a "holier than thou" viewpoint to talk down to us "whiners" about how we shouldn't complain about how we shouldn't complain about gas prices.

The reality is that most people cannot afford alternatively fueled vehicles and their fuel source; we just simply cannot drop $30,000+ to get the more environmentally friendly mode of transportation.

Another who will never have a clue. Self quotation for the win:
Those of you who think that technology and alternative energy will be able to solve this world's reliance on fossil fuel - will never be able to truly understand why this problem came about in the first place.

Any "poor" person most likely won't have a car, anyway. It is mostly the middle class complaining with their 5 SUVs.

Quote:

Middle-class people will go with what is readibly available, proven to work, and will get them to where they need to go. Oil-based gas and vehicles that run on this are what we will buy because they are currently much cheaper than the alternative.

Nice assumption there. With the current evidence (you know, the fact that oil will be gone), I'd say oil-based vehicles are proven to NOT work in the long run.

Quote:

I know that we are diminishing our supply of oil because any fixed amount of a resource will decrease as it is used, but prices should not spike when the gas that has already been delivered has been payed for by the gas station. They are gouging a resource all in the name of profit.

Gouging? I'd call it capitalism. Supply and demand, my friend.
Anyway, for it to *technically* be price gouging, there has to be a state of emergency. And while the gas prices really do suck for you guys, it really isn't a crisis that you have to pay maybe $50 or more a month. So you are wrong on both fronts.

Quote:

Environmentally friendly is the way to go but not at the whim of fools. We will not be running out of oil anytime soon; this is many decades away.

A few decades is a only a 1-2 generations. Most likely within our lifetimes. Considering human history has spanned hundreds of generations, I'd call a couple decades "anytime soon."
You think that just by saying things should be "environmentally friendly" that you aren't part of the problem. This is a real "DUH" moment. Of COURSE things would be better if things were environmentally friendly. There isn't any *real* argument here.

Quote:

I find "doomsday soothesayers" to be a very easy goup to irritate because they threaten everyone with ther "End of the World" ramblings in hope of changing things to favor their views. I may just even irritate one to the point of flameworthiness.

Haha, I really think you should evaluate the circumstances. I'm not the one getting "gouged" by gas prices. In reality, it looks like YOU are the irratable one, not me.

Edge Martinez · Sep 04, 2005, 10:17 PM // 22:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by dansamy

I'm an idiot when it comes to cars. Enlighten me as to what vehicles were made with the 3.8? When did they abandon that engine?

OWD already answered, but yeah, the 3.8 is currently in production and still very good. The abandonment I mentioned was the Chevy Celebrity, a rather big car for the times with a 4 cylinder engine that was a tank. It also was offered with a 6 cylinder. While the 4.3L engine isn't abandoned yet, I'm guessing it will be eventually. Not that anything's wrong with it, but more that not much goes wrong with it if you follow the upkeep schedule. My 'need to move stuff' vehicle is an 4.3L S-10 with 289,000 miles that I drove from NC to NY and back two months ago.

To keep this relatively on topic, the 3.8 gets great gas mileage and has good power, the 4.3 has great power and gets good gas mileage, the Celebrity got great gas mileage, couldn't get out of it's own way, but always got you where you were going. Nowadays we have huge SUV's. The Explorer was big, but not big enough. So then came the Expedition, much bigger, but not big enough. So we have the Excursion, holy shit that's big! I'm dreading what comes next. Ah well, if you can afford a SUV or one of those big trucks, I guess the price of gas don't matter much to you.

Kiiron · Sep 05, 2005, 01:15 AM // 01:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edge Martinez

Nowadays we have huge SUV's. The Explorer was big, but not big enough. So then came the Expedition, much bigger, but not big enough. So we have the Excursion, holy shit that's big! I'm dreading what comes next. Ah well, if you can afford a SUV or one of those big trucks, I guess the price of gas don't matter much to you.

Not true... I work at a hospital, and I know plenty of doctors who are getting rid of their Hummers and Excursions because they're simply fed up with paying $70+ to drive 150 miles. Priuses and Civics are popping up more and more in staff parking these days. Gas prices are finally getting up into the range where people who never had to worry about paying for gas before are starting to think about conservation.

Spartan2 · Sep 05, 2005, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Traversc, I don't even know how to respond to your inanity. Look, I was trying to play as close to the middle ground as possible. You, obviously, are not content at just voicing your opinion; you have to make it be "absolute fact". Maybe I cannot convey what I am thinking articulately enough for you to understand. On the other hand, I find it interesting that you just pick apart bits and pieces to build your argument.

In reality, I really don't care anymore about this argument. It failed to be constructive when you joined the fray. Congratulations, you killed a perfectly good topic with tunnel vision! What are you going to do next? Tell me I shouldn't use my keyboard because everytime I type a letter I am killing hundreds of billions of microscopic organisms that could, millions and billions of years later, evolve into a species that would benefit us? Farfetched, yet so believable.

AtomicMew · Sep 05, 2005, 11:07 PM // 23:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan2

On the other hand, I find it interesting that you just pick apart bits and pieces to build your argument.

Yes, this process is called criticism. When one critiques another's writing, this is done by breaking the argument into smaller pieces so others can see their (relative) flaws at the most essential level and then see how the argument is flawed as a whole. Don't like it? Don't post your opinion.

Quote:

In reality, I really don't care anymore about this argument. It failed to be constructive when you joined the fray. Congratulations, you killed a perfectly good topic with tunnel vision!

Yawnage!

Quote:

What are you going to do next? Tell me I shouldn't use my keyboard because everytime I type a letter I am killing hundreds of billions of microscopic organisms that could, millions and billions of years later, evolve into a species that would benefit us? Farfetched, yet so believable.

Animal rights was not even addressed in this topic. Are you really that stupid?

Pretty much the only REAL argument that you people have come up with is that environmentalists are somehow pretentious bastards. Although I do disagree, I have some advice for you guys that you should heed, even if you're going to ignore the overwhelming evidence: swallow your freaking pride. It doesn't matter if the people in the group are assholes, because the argument is still correct.

And that is pretty much the end of this thread. Spartan, I too am losing interest in this discussion, because it's tiring repeating the same old argument against ignorants who don't even address the issue. You people go play your ad-hominesque meta-politics with yourselves.

heist23 · Sep 05, 2005, 11:41 PM // 23:41

there was a recent TIME issue that came out about the possible repercussions of this new rise in oil prices...

i.e. people saving money for gas that would otherwise be spent in other things, such as groceries, etc. therefore the profits of other businesses will suffer. Wal-Mart recently announced that their total revenues dropped to an all-time low.

i don't remember most of it....but i think that this new rise might lead to inflation of some sort, similar to what happened during the Great Depression. but hell, i have no experience with economics, so this thought might not even be valid.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 05, 2005, 11:42 PM // 23:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

And that is pretty much the end of this thread. Spartan, I too am losing interest in this discussion, because it's tiring repeating the same old argument against ignorants who don't even address the issue. You people go play your ad-hominesque meta-politics with yourselves.

This thread ended for me long ago - when it became apparent you, traversc, wouldn't really address my comments (playing with the rhetoric doesn't count) and refuse to understand the points I'd been making. It's pointless to waste my time to try to bring them up again.

The fact is, you are being too much of a myopic bigot to consider the merit of any other argument. Face it.

You've already concluded that everyone who criticizes you is a Conservative anti-environmentalist and you take every contrary opinion as a personal attack.

I'm stating the facts. You can flame me now - go ahead and take my previous quotes out of context and use it to bolster an argument that portrays me and everyone else as a bunch of jackasses who are conspiring against you. Most people enter into a forum for a discussion - while folks like yourself are content at spouting self-indulgent, pseudo-intellecual slogans repeatedly without interest in two-way discourse.

Ironically you're the only one applying generalizations about a diverse body of opinionated people that just happen to disagree with you- and that, my friend, is called prejudice. The fact is, you have no idea where I or anyone else is coming from because you have preconceived notions and stereotypes of anybody with a contrary opinion.

I expect you to follow up with a passionate tirade of insults of little substance (constructed of quotes taken out of context).

D.E.V.i.A.N.C.E · Sep 05, 2005, 11:51 PM // 23:51

I was going to apply for a gas station job but I knew too many friends that would do these "Gas and Go's" and thats too much on my mind.

In the papers of MN; I'v read several articales about the drive off's.

Also tell your corperations to stop gag ordering sceintist's of there research of electric motor viechels, if so many found out you wouldnt never pay for an elecricty bill again; that would be a disaster to the workers and CEO's pockets.

Gag order them seince there the one whos funds there research, milk everything for what its worth; thee american dream, teenagers and CEOs alike.

AtomicMew · Sep 06, 2005, 02:55 AM // 02:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

(1)This thread ended for me long ago - when it became apparent you, traversc, wouldn't really address my comments (playing with the rhetoric doesn't count) and refuse to understand the points I'd been making. It's pointless to waste my time to try to bring them up again.

Ostensibly, if this thread had ended for you, you wouldn't be posting here now would you? As for not addressing the point, you even AGREED you didn't address my argument. How's that for hypocrisy

Quote:

(2)The fact is, you are being too much of a myopic bigot to consider the merit of any other argument. Face it.

Boing boing boing.

Quote:

(3)You've already concluded that everyone who criticizes you is a Conservative anti-environmentalist and you take every contrary opinion as a personal attack.

LIBEL - isn't a good way to go about your argument. Although I have taken some contrary opinions as personnal attacks because, well, they were. You know, childish name calling (troll, left wing nut, hypocrite, myopic bigot, etc.)

Quote:

I'm stating the facts.

1st quote: opinion. 2nd quote: opinion. 3rd quote: blatantly false. Way to state the facts, my good man!

Quote:

You can flame me now - go ahead and take my previous quotes out of context and use it to bolster an argument that portrays me and everyone else as a bunch of jackasses who are conspiring against you. Most people enter into a forum for a discussion - while folks like yourself are content at spouting self-indulgent, pseudo-intellecual slogans repeatedly without interest in two-way discourse.

Maybe you should look up the definition of conspire? Conspire? I simply think you are wrong.

Quote:

Ironically you're the only one applying generalizations about a diverse body of opinionated people that just happen to disagree with you- and that, my friend, is called prejudice. The fact is, you have no idea where I or anyone else is coming from because you have preconceived notions and stereotypes of anybody with a contrary opinion.

ASSUME-ING makes an ASS out of U and ME (though mostly U). You have ZERO evidence to back this statement up.

Quote:

I expect you to follow up with a passionate tirade of insults of little substance (constructed of quotes taken out of context).

Okay, on a serious note, if I've taken a post out of context, then call me on it. Tell me how and why its out of context because I don't believe I have.

Oh what the hell, you don't require me to be serious, because frankly, you have the weakest arguments I've come across in a very long time. The following is a passionate tirade of insults of little substance:
You are being too much of a myopic bigot to consider the merit of any other argument. Ironically you're the only one applying generalizations about a diverse body of opinionated people that just happen to disagree with you- and that, my friend, is called prejudice. The fact is, you have no idea where I or anyone else is coming from because you have preconceived notions and stereotypes of anybody with a contrary opinion. This thread ended for me long ago - when it became apparent you, Xue, wouldn't really address my comments (playing with the rhetoric doesn't count) and refuse to understand the points I'd been making. It's pointless to waste my time to try to bring them up again. But there is a point here; though most likely you wont get it.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 06, 2005, 03:42 AM // 03:42

As I said before:

Ironically you're the only one applying generalizations about a diverse body of opinionated people that just happen to disagree with you- and that, my friend, is called prejudice. The fact is, you have no idea where I or anyone else is coming from because you have preconceived notions and stereotypes of anybody with a contrary opinion.

I expect you to follow up with a passionate tirade of insults of little substance (constructed of quotes taken out of context).

I rest my case. - have a nice day.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 06, 2005, 04:25 AM // 04:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

As for not addressing the point, you even AGREED you didn't address my argument. How's that for hypocrisy

I never claimed to be addressing your entire argument - I took issue with your grossly simplified view of "environmentalism." This is the third time I've had to correct you on that fact - but you conveniently ignore it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Boing boing boing.

Consistent with the character and substance of your counter-arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

LIBEL - isn't a good way to go about your argument. Although I have taken some contrary opinions as personnal attacks because, well, they were. You know, childish name calling (troll, left wing nut, hypocrite, myopic bigot, etc.)

the only one of those terms I am responsible for applying here is "myopic bigot."
Myopic: a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

-think twice before you throw around accusations of libel - I stand by my statements. They weren't empty epithets.
-in your defense you can argue that the other terms were libelous, but that has nothing to do with me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Maybe you should look up the definition of conspire? Conspire? I simply think you are wrong.

Well, I'm addressing statements of yours such as...

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Pretty much the only REAL argument that you people have come up with is that environmentalists are somehow pretentious bastards. Although I do disagree, I have some advice for you guys that you should heed, even if you're going to ignore the overwhelming evidence: swallow your freaking pride.

..."you guys/people"? Do you think your opponents on this issue represent a cohesive perspective or even a consensus? You presume your opponents all hold the same view only because we oppose you - you presume we are coordinated in our beliefs toward a common end - i.e. a conspiracy. That's what I meant. Don't be so quick to lump us all together.

You're smart enough to recognize that without me having to explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

ASSUME-ING makes an ASS out of U and ME (though mostly U). You have ZERO evidence to back this statement up.

Please enlighten me about my assumptions.... I've just given you my evidence regarding my last few statements.
So let's recap your last post:
You called me a hypocrite - I just described how you are mistaken (see above)
You called me libelous - I also described how you are mistaken (see above)
You claimed I misapplied the term "conspiracy" - I've addressed that (see above)
You called me an "ass." - well... I am an ass but it has nothing to do with this discussion

------
When you counter my statements please only reference my own words - Please resist the temptation to quote a third party when trying to demonstrate, say, a case of libel on my part - because, believe it or not, I don't necessarily support the views held by those who oppose you. If you were open to serious discourse you may find our principles have more in common than you think. But that would actually involve a discussion rather than an exchange of slogans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Ostensibly, if this thread had ended for you, you wouldn't be posting here now would you?

You're absolutely right! But I couldn't resist taking another stab after you started referring to "you people."
C'mon, you should know better than to do that.

Have a nice day.

AtomicMew · Sep 06, 2005, 03:27 PM // 15:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

I never claimed to be addressing your entire argument - I took issue with your grossly simplified view of "environmentalism." This is the third time I've had to correct you on that fact - but you conveniently ignore it.

Third time you've admitted to ignoring my arguments, and then accusing me of ignoring others. Way to go, hypocrite!

Quote:

Boing boing boing!
Consistent with the character and substance of your counter-arguments.

Boing boing boing. If a large section of your post is going towards the sole purpose of flaming me, I'm going to ignore it.

Quote:

the only one of those terms I am responsible for applying here is "myopic bigot."
Myopic: a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
-think twice before you throw around accusations of libel - I stand by my statements. They weren't empty epithets.

The libel statement was in response to YOU saying "You've already concluded that everyone who criticizes you is a Conservative anti-environmentalist." Please show me evidence where I have suggested that in the least. I realize a good deal of you are probably liberal as well, but liberal != environmentalist. The name calling bit was in response to "...and you take every contrary opinion as a personal attack." Surely it doens't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Quote:

Well, I'm addressing statements of yours such as......"you guys/people"? Do you think your opponents on this issue represent a cohesive perspective or even a consensus? You presume your opponents all hold the same view only because we oppose you - you presume we are coordinated in our beliefs toward a common end - i.e. a conspiracy. That's what I meant. Don't be so quick to lump us all together.

Right, saying "you guys" makes me a conspiracy theorist. Right.... lol. Maybe its YOU who needs to be checked into the mental ward. That IS the argument you have come up with, as well as others. It's like saying, if each of you had an orange, "you guys have oranges."

Quote:

You're smart enough to recognize that without me having to explain it.
Please enlighten me about my assumptions.... I've just given you my evidence regarding my last few statements.
So let's recap your last post:
You called me a hypocrite - I just described how you are mistaken (see above) - wrong, see above.
You called me libelous - I also described how you are mistaken (see above) - wrong, see above.
You claimed I misapplied the term "conspiracy" - I've addressed that (see above) -wrong, see above.
You called me an "ass." - well... I am an ass but it has nothing to do with this discussion

Okay, ass.

Quote:

When you counter my statements please only reference my own words

I dont remember bringing in any other person's words in this thread, unless you had previously referenced it. Nice try though.

Quote:

Please resist the temptation to quote a third party when trying to demonstrate, say, a case of libel on my part - because, believe it or not, I don't necessarily support the views held by those who oppose you.

See above, ain't rocket science. Also, please refrain from repeating the same statements in the same post. It's really stupid.

Quote:

If you were open to serious discourse you may find our principles have more in common than you think. But that would actually involve a discussion rather than an exchange of slogans.

I am open to serious discussion.

Quote:

You're absolutely right! But I couldn't resist taking another stab after you started referring to "you people."
C'mon, you should know better than to do that.

Me too, lol!

Quote:

Have a nice day.

Xue Yi Liang · Sep 06, 2005, 04:56 PM // 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Third time you've admitted to ignoring my arguments, and then accusing me of ignoring others. Way to go, hypocrite!

When I challenge your characterization of "environmentalists" I direct my arguments and examples toward that end.

When you attempt to counter me you only make unqualified statements without addressing my points - that's what I mean. Don't you see the difference?

Again, please tell me what I've ignored - where have I "admitted" I ignored you?

Let me put it this way... You just bought a new car. I look at it and say the tire pressure is low - I don't think it's going anywhere until you fix that. Your response is - "It has great mileage, plus it was voted car of the year 2005 - you're ignoring my arguments."
I say, "Look, I didn't say your car was a complete piece of junk - that's a separate discussion. I'm saying your tire pressure is low. It's impossible to even evaluate it until you fix that."
You say, "It's not low. And quit ignoring my arguments."
I say, "Look, I didn't say your car was a complete piece of junk - that's a separate discussion. I'm saying your tire pressure is low. It's impossible to even evaluate it until you fix that."
You say, "It's not low. And quit ignoring my arguments."
.
.
.
etc. etc. etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

The libel statement was in response to YOU saying "You've already concluded that everyone who criticizes you is a Conservative anti-environmentalist."

That might be the case but you specifically used "myopic bigot," "left-wing nut" and "hypocrite" to make your case about libel. Now you're changing your argument as if you were referring to something else. You keep doing this and it doesn't make your case any stronger.

I'll concede that my use of the term "conservative anti-environmentalist" was a presumption on my part. But the arguments posited by others aren't necessarily the same. To take your own example: I have grapes, someone else has oranges, and another person has a pear. You, who have the apple, say "you oranges out there don't know what you're talking about."

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Right, saying "you guys" makes me a conspiracy theorist. Right.... lol.

Uhh- you might want to check with the dictionary, pal. Describing a conspiracy does not equate to conspiracy theory. I didn't call you a conspiracy theorist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Please show me evidence where I have suggested that in the least. I realize a good deal of you are probably liberal as well, but liberal != environmentalist.

Uhh - nobody said liberal = environmentalist.

For the last time - "environmentalists" are not all the same. I illustrated that fact because what you may be referring to as "environmentalist" may be different from what other people think. It's an important distinction because many high-profile "environmentalist" lobby groups and NPOs hardly represent the principles of "environmentalism" as understood by the average undergraduate activist, for example.

It's folly to presume that "environmentalism" is clearly-defined. That's why anybody arguing in this realm must define his/her terms. These are the fundamental rules of constructive discourse. Otherwise you'll get nowhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

The name calling bit was in response to "...and you take every contrary opinion as a personal attack." Surely it doens't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Again. If someone else calls you a "left-wing nut" - what does that have to do with me? I'm talking about your response to my statements. Remember, I'm the bearer of grapes - it seems you have an issue with the oranges so don't lump us all together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

Maybe its YOU who needs to be checked into the mental ward. That IS the argument you have come up with, as well as others. It's like saying, if each of you had an orange, "you guys have oranges."

now that's an example of libel. Doesn't matter - but orange != grape != pear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

I dont remember bringing in any other person's words in this thread, unless you had previously referenced it. Nice try though.

Again - you made the case of libel against me by calling up epithets (e.g. "left-wing nut") used by others. You can't make collective statements about everyone who disagrees with you. So don't call me libelous by using someone else's words. (Yes, I am repeating myself because you forget I've already made this case.)

As an example, were I to encounter an extremist "environmentalist" who happens to believe that the killing of corporate executives is a viable solution to save the spotted owl, I'd be wrong if I used that example to condemn everything you represent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by traversc

See above, ain't rocket science. Also, please refrain from repeating the same statements in the same post.

I repeat them because they're relevant to the issue at hand. When you conjure another argument that has already been addressed by those statements - I will bring them up again. The fact that you see them so often just illustrates how much of what I'm telling you is actually absorbed.

your turn

zehly · Sep 06, 2005, 07:10 PM // 19:10

Eh, we have been having lots of people here in Virginia that are pump-n-runners.. they gank the gas. Do you think this makes prices go up?

Also, as for prices in GA, think about it's proximity to LA and the number of people who evacuated to GA.

AtomicMew · Sep 06, 2005, 10:00 PM // 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xue Yi Liang

When I challenge your characterization of "environmentalists" I direct my arguments and examples toward that end.

When you attempt to counter me you only make unqualified statements without addressing my points - that's what I mean. Don't you see the difference?
...
etc. etc. etc.

Except calling environmentalists hypocritical is in no way an argument against mine. I've addressed your issue with environmentalists way back in my first response.

Quote:

That might be the case but you specifically used "myopic bigot," "left-wing nut" and "hypocrite" to make your case about libel.
Now you're changing your argument as if you were referring to something else. You keep doing this and it doesn't make your case any stronger.

No I didn't. I had two seperate sentances to address two different issues, both of which were in your ONE sentence.

Quote:

I'll concede that my use of the term "conservative anti-environmentalist" was a presumption on my part. But the arguments posited by others aren't necessarily the same. To take your own example: I have grapes, someone else has oranges, and another person has a pear. You, who have the apple, say "you oranges out there don't know what you're talking about."

Except you all have oranges. You all more or less came up with the argument that environmentalists are hypocritical.

Quote:

Uhh- you might want to check with the dictionary, pal. Describing a conspiracy does not equate to conspiracy theory. I didn't call you a conspiracy theorist.

A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

Done and done.

Quote:

Uhh - nobody said liberal = environmentalist.

This was in reference to your statement that I thought everyone in opposition was a "conservative anti-environmentalist."

Quote:

For the last time - "environmentalists" are not all the same. I illustrated that fact because what you may be referring to as "environmentalist" may be different from what other people think. It's an important distinction because many high-profile "environmentalist" lobby groups and NPOs hardly represent the principles of "environmentalism" as understood by the average undergraduate activist, for example.

I believe this was my point.

Quote:

It's folly to presume that "environmentalism" is clearly-defined. That's why anybody arguing in this realm must define his/her terms. These are the fundamental rules of constructive discourse. Otherwise you'll get nowhere.

I DID clearly define my concept of environmentalism, although not explicitly. Please reread my first post.

Quote:

Again. If someone else calls you a "left-wing nut" - what does that have to do with me? I'm talking about your response to my statements. Remember, I'm the bearer of grapes - it seems you have an issue with the oranges so don't lump us all together.

"The name calling bit was in response to '...and you take every contrary opinion as a personal attack.'"
So it has to do with YOU, because YOU brought it up. In other words, I've taken contrary opinions in this thread as personal attacks because they CONTAINED personal attacks. Clear?

Quote:

I repeat them because they're relevant to the issue at hand. When you conjure another argument that has already been addressed by those statements - I will bring them up again. The fact that you see them so often just illustrates how much of what I'm telling you is actually absorbed.

I meant you repeat the same exact point in the same post, often paragraphs next to each other. Repetition like that really doesn't help your argument.

Quote:

your turn