View Single Post
Old 09-24-2008, 03:35 PM   #93 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 16,228
Thanks: 24,375
Thanked 7,357 Times in 4,757 Posts
answers

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
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.
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote