Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
How about putting some thought into the poll answers? Or if you did think about them, how about answers that aren't so obviously loaded?
"No" is a good option. "No because..." is bad, when there's only one choice of because. In this case, I'd vote no, but not because the public would be unhappy. It's because A) It was tried before, and didn't work; and B) It ignores the real problem. The way to save significant amounts of isn't to drive oversized gas-guzzlers a bit slower, it's to drive cars that get decent fuel economy - 75 mpg at 75 mph! - or which don't even use oil as their primary "fuel" source.
|
I think the members answers or responses will provide Supa with exactly what is necessary to prepare for the "persuasive argument."Since "extraordinary claims" require"extraordinary evidence",Supa will need to draw on the entire spectrum of human reaction,which seems to be well-represented here at ecomodder, to make a case.------------------------ The more the better,if a "command" of knowledge is to be demonstrated,as I suspect Supa will be attacked from all sides.