Quote:
Originally Posted by SentraSE-R
You may want to ignore technological advances, but that was the point of the discussion.
|
I am not "ignoring" technological advances, nor is Frank. Nor is it the point of the discussion. What we are saying is that the "advances" are not always as beneficial or desirable as they are purported to be. Also we are saying that we do not have the choice to opt out by buying a vehicle without them.
Quote:
|
If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then why are you posting? Your ridiculous limitations are akin to posting in a photography forum, and insisting that everyone ignore digital cameras because film is the only way cameras capture images.
|
I am posting to show your comparison is invalid and skewed. You are still trying to compare 'apples to oranges'. If
all or even most of today's cars were hybrids (as with your defensive but flawed analogy to digital cameras), the comparison might be valid. But you know very well that most of today's cars are NOT hybrids, yet you insist on focusing only on the few that are, and purposefully ignoring the rest.
Quote:
|
You made a claim that weight was more important than rolling resistance and drag effects. You can't prove your point. You DO need to prove your claim, or you're proving you're the person in denial.
|
No, I don't need to prove anything to you nor will I allow you to put me on the defensive. Your can continue your belief that weight has less or no impact on fuel economy, just as you can believe the moon is made of green cheese and demand that someone provide you with proof to the contrary. Refusal to entertain proof does not automatically make you correct or credible, it merely shows you to be argumentative.