5 ms·

Ah, come ON. The original post is the article Jason Cammisa, "No crankshaft, no problem: Toyota's free piston engine is brilliant: Gas piston engine fundamen

by graycat 12y ago

Ah, come ON. The original post is the article Jason Cammisa, "No crankshaft, no problem: Toyota's free piston engine is brilliant: Gas piston engine fundamentals haven't changed in 134 years—until now.", 'Road and Track', June 30, 2014. at http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/out-of-turn-toyota-engine http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/out-of-turn-toyota-engine and the third paragraph starts with just what I quoted, exactly, again, yet again, one more time, exactly, precisely, every character right in place: > Electrically driven cars are the future. But until we have cheap, 1000-mile batteries, we still need range-extending fossil-fuel engines. Again, the work by Toyota looks good, and the article is somewhat interesting, but apparently the author wanted to insert a line to please the greenies so put in his "1000-mile batteries" and his swipe "fossil-fuel". Apparently with a little more encouragement he could have put in some words about evil humans and filthy CO2 and the dangers of 'global warming', rising sea levels, massive deaths of wildlife, the melting of Greenland, and 'climate change', that is, each tornado, hurricane, flood, drought, snow storm, especially hot/cold day, week, season, etc. I'm SICK of nearly constantly being beaten over the head for no good reason by this non-stop propaganda of total incompetent, made-up, hysterical, guilt-ridden, dysfunctional, destructive, dangerous nonsense. This propaganda is trying to build a political consensus to get on my back and into my wallet and seriously hurt the US, and I don't like it. I don't know who or what is paying for or pushing this propaganda, but I'm pushing back at it. They also don't actually say the words you have put in quotation marks,

maxerickson 12y ago
Okay, I guess I misunderstood that your comment that was posted as a child of a comment was not actually a response to that post (I would guess that most other people made the same error...). Or are we supposed to tease out what part of the invective is directed at the parent comment and what part is directed at the overall story? My bad substituting "carbon" for "CO2".
- graycat 12y ago
  I didn't know the 'hierarchical' norm of implied references and, instead, thought that all the posts were about or at least in the context of the OP unless carefully stated otherwise. For the guy with his Chevy Volt, fine.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I think if you are going to post a rant about the linked article, it's pretty appropriate to post it at top level, or at least as a reply to a comment with a lot of context. I also think it would be more useful to post a thoughtful, persuasive comment (as opposed to saying 15 gallons multiple times), but that's a different issue. Anyway, this whole sub thread is sort of unfortunate (in that we both wasted time and any unfortunate bystanders wasted their time too). Oh well.
    - graycat 12y ago
      I don't recall just why I posted just where I did in the tree, and I'm not going to waste any more time to look. The 15 gallons thing is because I'm pissed at this greenie stuff and need to pound and pound on the rock solid, dirt simple, overwhelmingly important fact that the whole greenie thing is trying to beat a 15 gallon tank and has essentially no chance of doing so and, thus, is really dumb and much of why I'm pissed. I continue to be attacked here because of 15 gallons, and that shows again, yet again, once again, over again that even something as simple as a 15 gallon tank is unacceptable to the greenies so devoted they are to their irrational religion. The greenies can go worship the moon and I won't care, but they are a threat to my car and to the strength of the US, and I'm pissed, as nearly everyone in the US should be. This greenie stuff is wacko.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Yeah, I understand not wasting any more time on this thread. You aren't getting attacked because you said 15 gallons though, people are down voting your posts because they don't add much to the conversation. You're imagining some motivated contingent of people voting against your posts because they speak the truth about the article, but really, your first post was down voted because it was somewhat obnoxious. I mean, are you commenting here because it is a convenient place to propagandize, or are you commenting here because some decent and interesting conversations take place? If it's the latter, then you have a reason to make a better effort than making sure that your views get equal time propaganda. I realize that sounds preachy, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to better put it.

by graycat 12y ago

maxerickson 12y ago

Okay, I guess I misunderstood that your comment that was posted as a child of a comment was not actually a response to that post (I would guess that most other people made the same error...). Or are we supposed to tease out what part of the invective is directed at the parent comment and what part is directed at the overall story? My bad substituting "carbon" for "CO2".

graycat 12y ago
I didn't know the 'hierarchical' norm of implied references and, instead, thought that all the posts were about or at least in the context of the OP unless carefully stated otherwise. For the guy with his Chevy Volt, fine.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I think if you are going to post a rant about the linked article, it's pretty appropriate to post it at top level, or at least as a reply to a comment with a lot of context. I also think it would be more useful to post a thoughtful, persuasive comment (as opposed to saying 15 gallons multiple times), but that's a different issue. Anyway, this whole sub thread is sort of unfortunate (in that we both wasted time and any unfortunate bystanders wasted their time too). Oh well.
  - graycat 12y ago
    I don't recall just why I posted just where I did in the tree, and I'm not going to waste any more time to look. The 15 gallons thing is because I'm pissed at this greenie stuff and need to pound and pound on the rock solid, dirt simple, overwhelmingly important fact that the whole greenie thing is trying to beat a 15 gallon tank and has essentially no chance of doing so and, thus, is really dumb and much of why I'm pissed. I continue to be attacked here because of 15 gallons, and that shows again, yet again, once again, over again that even something as simple as a 15 gallon tank is unacceptable to the greenies so devoted they are to their irrational religion. The greenies can go worship the moon and I won't care, but they are a threat to my car and to the strength of the US, and I'm pissed, as nearly everyone in the US should be. This greenie stuff is wacko.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      Yeah, I understand not wasting any more time on this thread. You aren't getting attacked because you said 15 gallons though, people are down voting your posts because they don't add much to the conversation. You're imagining some motivated contingent of people voting against your posts because they speak the truth about the article, but really, your first post was down voted because it was somewhat obnoxious. I mean, are you commenting here because it is a convenient place to propagandize, or are you commenting here because some decent and interesting conversations take place? If it's the latter, then you have a reason to make a better effort than making sure that your views get equal time propaganda. I realize that sounds preachy, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to better put it.