Catalytic Converters and the EPA.
 

Here is an interesting paper I composed for my Environmental class. The assignment was to write an editorial for a newspaper, so please excuse the colloquial writing, it was supposed to appeal to even the stupidest citizens that can manage to hold a paper :rolleyes: ;)

Enjoy! :D

This Cat’s a Bit “Hot” Under the Collar

What type of cat causes pollution when cold, attempts to work when hot, and is hazardous to your health? If you own an automobile, you most likely have one in your exhaust system. A catalytic converter (commonly referred to as a “cat”) is a pollution-control device that has been required on most vehicles in the USA since the mid 1980s. Housed within a protective metal structure, the interior honeycomb design is coated with platinum and rhodium. These catalysts speed up the oxidation reactions to convert harmful exhaust gases (carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons) into less toxic substances (water and carbon dioxide gas).

Once touted as the savior of the gasoline engine, the cat has proven much less effective than once expected. Scientific studies have proven that cats emit toxic substances that cause fatal respiratory diseases in humans, including lung cancer. Some of these gases include cyanide and cyanic acid, hydrogen-sulfur, and phosgen (which was utilized in World War I as a combat gas). These substances are NOT produced by the engine, but rather by the cats themselves. Another suspected side effect is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). As cases began emerging in America in the late 1980s (following the introduction of cats), it is very likely that chemical reactions occurring in the cat account for the massive onset of CFS. Similar trends have also been documented in Japan, Australia, and some parts of Europe after introduction of cat-equipped vehicles.

In addition to health related side effects, cats also pose a threat to the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), cats have been identified as a large contributor to global warming. The cats can rearrange the nitrogen-oxygen compounds to form nitrous oxide (a potent greenhouse gas). The EPA published a study estimating that nitrous oxide now comprises about 7.2 percent of the gases that cause global warming. Cars and trucks fitted with cats produce nearly half of that amount. The EPA calculated that production of nitrous oxide from vehicles rose by nearly 50 percent between 1990 and 1996 (older, non-cat cars were for the most part obsolete).

Although the automotive industry has come a long way in producing more environmentally sound products, much improvement is still required in order to secure a better future. Now that we know the problem, what do we do about it? As a citizen you should be concerned about your environment, and as a consumer (emissions equipment accounts for 2% of a car’s MSRP) you should insist on an effective product for your money. Essentially, the catalytic converter was an attempt to trade one evil for a lesser-known evil (smog for health issues and global warming). As we learn more about the effects of our technological advances, we must continue to improve our preventative techniques, and the public must be part of that forward movement.


I was thinking about sending that in to MMFF mail or something...think its worth it?

Yes it is good enough.

Now I'm glad I'm gonna remove my cats:D

Are those 22s on your 2.3L?

:D

no belle they are only 20's:(





:D

Catalytic converter myths
 

Mustangbelle:

The piece is fine, nicely written. I would give it an 'A'.
My problem is with the premise.

I don't believe much of anything the EPA says, especially when it comes to 'global warming', a scientific phantom that the enviro-nuts use to ban anything they don't like, especially the automobile.

Factual observations:

Sources for the 'scientific studies' that show catalytic converters can cause lung cancer? I'm sure they exist, you just need to name them for credibility.

I believe that catalytic converters were required on all cars manufactured in the U.S. starting in 1975, not the mid-80's.

Personal observations:

Yes, the catalytic converter may have flaws and problems, but the people knocking it are NOT seeking to eliminate the cat, that's just a trojan horse. They want to eliminate cars that run on gasoline which they see as killing the planet and people. I strongly disagree.

These folks (like the EPA bureaucrats) want us to drive little electric cars that 'don't pollute'. They also don't go very far, very fast, either, but to the EPA loonies, that is your car of the future, so get used to it.

In my considered opinion, screw them.

U.S.-manufactured vehicles pollute only a tiny amount but as the statements you quoted in your essay showed, the enviromental loonies can find danger and death everywhere when it comes to automobiles - which they hate with a passion. What I think they dislike so much isn't the so-called 'pollution' (that's a front) but the freedom for the individual the personal gasoline-powered automobile offers. Try hopping in your electric car-of- the-future for a nice cruise on Friday night. Somehow, it won't be the same (you can't go far or fast) and that's how the enviro-whackos want it. No fast cars, no racing, no freedom. All for our own good and to 'save the planet' of course. Hmmmm.

So Belle, although you wrote a good essay I have to part company with the premise that finds every other heath problem stemming from catalytic converters, because it's basically unproven and in my opinion is just another way to say 'Cars Pollute...we're all gonna die' and call for banning the gasoline engine. If you doubt it, read some EPA and other enviro-whacko lliterature (I have) and you see that in their view, the gasoline engine can never be made 'safe' enough. Electric cars are the 'only' solution. If possible, bicycles would be even better.

As for sending it to MM&FF, I have a feeling they would give you the same response but hey, why not? See what happens.

I included all my sources when I submitted it to my professor, didn't think it would be necessary on this site..

Also, the EPA article did not entirely push for the use of electric cars. The premise of the article was to reinvent the cat to burn cleaner at idle, when a staggering amount of the pollution and harmful fumes are emitted...Although I don't disagree that the EPA would be in favor of electic cars, I don't think their catalytic converter argument is concerning that part of their usually skewed agenda, however I do see how it could be linked :(

I don't always find fault with the EPA, just with some of their narrow minded policies concerning automobiles. I know that had it not been formed, industry would probably still be using older cheaper technology with NO environmental regulations, and our car show summers would probably have more Code Red days then we already do.

My disagreement with their automobile policies is why I have chosen the field I'm currently enrolled in...would be nice to try to make a change, as overly optimistic as that may sound.

just a kinda short comment belle, i agree that cat's suck, when they get stopped up your car wont run worth a crap, plus they gag you to death with the fumes;) i usually take a straight rod & bust up all the sh-- inside & shake it out.:eek:

Re: Catalytic converter myths
 

The cat was INTRODUCED in the 1970s, but was not REQUIRED until the 1980s (when the 3 way cat was introduced). Feel free to check it out:

http://www.fisita.com/exhibit/emissions/history.html

Though I could have been technical about the inception date, I was more concerned about when it actually affected Americans and their automobiles...

About credibility...2 of my sources were The Brewer Library in Wisconsin, and the German Oncology society and Department of Medicine.

Cars DO pollute, and they DO harm the environment. I just choose to accept that risk, and drive my gasoline powered vehicle. That doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing, or that just bc the EPA IS a bunch of tree huggers, that my behavior is any less destructive. There is NO safe car either way...even electric vehicles use energy that is derived from burning coal...that's life.

I also do not feel that the EPA's crusade has ANYTHING to do with personal freedoms at all...not saying their intentions are any more savory, but I don't see any "evidence" of an anti-freedom campaign. I feel that claim is more unproven than any that I have made.

I'm pretty far from a treehugger, but humans ARE the most wasteful race in existence, and our abuse of fossil fuels is no exception. I'm no doomsayer, proclaiming that we are going to perish because we are going to run out of resources anytime soon, but I also do feel that we DO need some common sense regulations concerning the environment. I just wish the damn EPA could find a middle ground...encouraging less wasteful behavior, but at the same time not shoving battery cars and HOV lanes down our throats.

Conservation is a mentality that can only be cultivated over time and with education ( and DOESN'T have to use stupid hybrid vehices), yet the EPA is still convinced they can change the world in a century... not likely.

Cats
 

I have little use for the EPA and believe they are almost totally anti-automobile but I admire your optimism and wish you well in your chosen field.

Belle,

It was a very well written piece. I enjoyed reading it.

I'm not cutting the article in any way here, but in order to add credibility to your arguments, you must do like Mr 5.0 suggested and cite specific sources if you were to submit this piece for publication.

Also, as far as sources go, in the scientific realm (which is where I have spent the majority of my time in education and career), sources are meticulously scrutinized. If there are any weaknesses in your presentation or your sources of information, they will find it and pick the article apart. In order for a source to be considered valid to anyone of scientific mind who happens to read the article, it must come from a peer reviewed literature of some sort. These sources typically provide the most controlled and objective studies. Journal articles can be great sources of information if the studies were done properly. And don't think they won't look up your sources. They will, and if the study is weak, not done properly, or statistically inconclusive, they will tear it apart.

Further, published book or even school textbooks are not sufficient sources of scientific data (unless they scite specific studies, in which case you need to look up the study and cite it as the source). It's funny that all you need to do in order to get a book...even a school textbook published is provide the publisher with incentive for profit. There is no peer review or standards held.

Reguardless, like I said before, good job on the article. It would be a good piece for a paper or circular of some sort. Just remember, if you want to present a really powerful argument on your case, make sure your sources are iron clad. This way your article will stand in the face of criticism and will present a scientifically sound and persuasive argument.

:)

--nathan

More cats
 

Mustangbelle306:

Well, we disagree on the motivations of the EPA then. So be it.

I find them to be doing whatever they can to restrict human activity - especially automobile use - and blame humanity for anything and everything that might possibly have any environmental impact, which turns out to be just about everything, including the infamous 'cow flatulance'/methane gas 'problem' they 'found' that made them look like idiots a few years ago.

I see the EPA agenda to be that of ursurping personal freedom by imposition of regulations - which they are very good at.

Regulation is fine when it can be proven to be necessary, but not from unelected bureaucrats hiding behind titles in some EPA cubbyhole in D.C. These things should be voted on by our representatives in Congress, not simply imposed on the nation at will by a federal agency, giving us no say in the matter. More like rule by fiat than democracy and I can't defend it, as you seem able to do.

Example: Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to determine how much water my toilet bowl can hold and what the flush rate (water flow) should be? Nowhere, of course, but we now have such a federal, nationally-imposed regulation on toilets. For our own good, of course. Right.

Sure, the EPA does some good but they stay in business and get their budgets funded by always finding some enviromental 'problem' to be addressed. Constantly. Cars are a common target. Always will be, too. Everybody owns one, the automakers have billions and since no car is truly pollution-free, they can always find a 'problem' to address. It'll never end and I get tired of it. Give it a few years and you might, too.

I'm unable to share your faith in big government agencies to 'help' Americans, especially the EPA. I also do not find it necessary to apologize for being human and by being human to aid in spreading 'pollution' throughout the land every time I drive or do much of anything. That's bull.

Third world countries might pollute unnecessarily but in America, we've cleaned up a lot and this country is far better than it ever was a hundred or even fifty years ago in terms of pollution, corporate and personal.

We have no need to apologize to the EPA about 'waste' or pollution. We've addressed the problem and will continue to do so. The liberal mindset of the EPA that assumes both private citizens and corporations will pollute like maniacs without the wise men at a government agency to stop them is insulting and wrong, in my opinion.

So, we part company on the value, the motives and agenda of the EPA, Belle.

You still wrote a good essay, no need to be defensive. It's the EPA I have problems with, not catalytic converters or you.

Awright! :D

That's true. The majority of Americans read on a 6th grade education level.

Geeze. Next thing you know scientists will say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.:rolleyes:

I agree. For example, my best friend's bone stock 90 Mustang GT runs low 11's in the quarter mile. I haven't provided any proof to back up my claim. You can't prove me wrong because you have never seen it or been there. Chances are pretty good you don't believe me though, and now my credability is shot to hell. Cite your sources.


All in all it's a good article. It's informative, easy to comprehend, and just interesting enough to keep reading until the end. Be ready to defend it though. You have written a biased article in your view, and others will definately want you to hear theirs. You seem to have done quite well already here, but remember, we LIKE you. :p

For the record:
I agree with you.
I hate the EPA.
I have no cats on my car.
I know cigarettes cause lung cancer.
And finally, see sig....

Re: More cats
 

I wasn't defensive of myself, except when you start bringing up sources...Christ it was a school paper, and when I said send it in to a magazine, I meant in LETTERS, not as some official document. I wouldn't publish my name on anything that I didn't witness first hand, I was merely trying to show people that not all the environment "fix-ups" we are told are GREAT and hunky dorey as the evil EPA would have us believe.

I am far from adoring big government, that's why I am a Republican and an undying proponent of states rights. BUT...the older I get and the more people I meet, I lose faith in the normal idiot ;). Does this mean I want my life regulated? No. It just makes me happy that there IS some basic regulation, mostly for business. I'm ALREADY tired of them raggin' on cars, just saying that they do pollute, because some morons STILL refuse to admit that they do (trust me, I'm enrolled with some :rolleyes: )

And yes, many corparations WOULD pollute mindlessly if there were no regulation (anyone remember Love Canal??) Evidenced by the many "grandfathered" in power plants that have yet to meet what I would consider just decent standards (not EPA fluff BS). If you are telling me you think businesses would spend extra money to clean up instead of on increased production on their own accord, I wish I could agree.

You just seemed to have missed the ENTIRE point of my crummy paper, which was to wake people up to the fact that NOT everything (most) the media tells us is true. Recycling does NOT save the world. and catalytic converters don't either. This thread was NOT intended to become some political argument, just to remind everyone not to believe everything they hear...

JESUS ITS A CLASS PROJECT that does NOT necessarily reflect my personal views. It DOES in the sense that I feel that the media builds up these environmental saviors to be something that they are not. And that in this SAVING frenzy, some of the facts get lost and confused.

THAT IS WHAT THE PAPER IS ABOUT. THINKING FOR YOURSELF.

It was NOT supposed to deal with the founding/mentality/EXISTENCE of the EPA, human rights, politics, toilets, or what the **** ever its now been twisted into...it wasn't even formal as I stated in the first line!!!

Sorry if I'm getting upset, but I just thought it would be something nice to post and get people thinking about the bias of the media (not ME) versus the (possible) truth. I don't think any of you are attacking me personally or my writing, but I get upset when my intentions are misterpreted.

Cats, politics and the EPA
 

Mustangbelle:

Sorry if you feel beseiged. Speaking of intentions, I didn't intend to turn the thread controversial or put you in a position of defending big government. I respect (and share) your Republicanism, as you probably know by now.

As I originally stated, the paper you wrote was fine. I gave it an 'A' as you'll recall. I simply used it as a jumping -off point to expound my (mostly negative) views of government agencies and the EPA in particular. Perhaps I did miss the point somewhat in my zeal to attack big government. Sorry about that.

I'm aware that you were trying to make the point that catalytic converters aren't the anti-pollution panacea they were once touted to be by the EPA and NHTSA but the EPA is where you got a lot of the negative 'findings' about the problems and I wanted to point out that - in my view - the EPA is not automobile-friendly and when they find all this deadly stuff coming from catalytic converters, I'm suspicious of both the science and the motives.

Saying so is not a crime and as you noted, I'm not critical of you or your paper, although we obviously do have some areas of disagreement regarding pollution and corporate responsibility. So what?

Rather than be frustrated, I would hope you would be pleased that you received a lot of attention for the essay and that it's generated a lot of discussion, so far. That's a compliment, not a criticism.

Enjoy the thread's exposure and participate - or not - but remember that on a public messageboard, you cannot control the responses you receive, pro or con. I know from experience.

Appreciate your responses and I hope you'll not consider mine as anything other than an expression of one man's opinion, with no greater weight than anyone else's, of course. Just discussion, no more. I find it stimulating and I don't post in bumper-sticker terms so forgive my verbosity.

I still distrust government agencies.

OMG here we go again with Mr. 5.0,

First off Belle nicely written paper. you recieve an A.

2nd, Mr 5.0 you said you give the paper an A, then you said you had a problem with the premise......then a long list of things of things that you say are wrong or you disagree with, therefore if you were the teacher, with the list given of complaints, that wouldnt be an A.
if you wanna get technical like you insisted on.

3rd, why do you insist on being so technical........in your thread you said, "Well, we disagree on the motivations of the EPA then. So be it. "

YOU SAID IT YOURSELF "SO BE IT" let it go, dont start an argument.

if it makes you feel far more superior then do it.

P.S. 20 bucks says mr 5.0 starts a flame over this one with me......:D just watch

Ok Tony...there's nothing wrong with what Jim said in his post about giving Belle an A but disagreeing with the premise. Guess what. There's this thing called freedom of speech. It applies to our schools as well. If you are given an assignment in which you are allowed to choose the topic, it doesn't matter if the teacher agrees with your premise or not. If it's done properly and you did a successful job of defending your position, it's an A. Mr 5.0's "grade" to Belle dealt with the quality of the work, not the subject matter.

Second, if you don't know what Mr 5.0's style is by now, you need to spend some more time on the boards. It's in his style to go deep into topics, and I know myself and others appreciate this. Sure, Jim is an opinionated person. So am I. At least he stands true to what he believes and is consistant in his discussions. In my opinion, if you hold certain things to be true, yet you cannot defend your stance in a simple debate, what is it that you really believe? Is it just something that you've been told? Or did you just make it up? I know from his posts that Jim has put a lot of critical thought into his stance on issues. What's wrong for him to express his opinions and defend them in front of others.

I don't see Mr. 5.0 as starting an argument. He's just openly discussing his views, much as I and others on this board have done.

Belle,

I appologize if I misinturpreted the original intention of your post. I didn't mean to turn you on the defensive. It's a good paper with a good premise and presents a nice flip on a topic we usually only hear the other side on.

Jim,

I have no doubt that you can adequately defend yourself, and I appologize if I stole any of your thunder.

Come on people....this is a general discussion board. Let's allow general discussion.

--nathan

Unwarranted animus draws no comment
 

You lose.

OMG...you people don't even bother to read long posts do you? :rolleyes:

First my quoting of sources is skipped over, and then I've already said I'm NOT defensive of my paper, or that someone doesn't agree with me. You must obviously have mistaken me for someone that cares.

I was just pissy because my point was to share something I found interesting, and that you'll probably never hear on the news, etc. It wasn't meant to be a political war or a lame argument, but yes, I can't control who bastardizes what thread to what extent, and so on. That's all.

thats not an opinion, he believs that she is wrong, therefore, would now warrant a perfect grade

are you serious??

ok i do spend time here, and yes i do know his style, and that is a whole new thread on how he treats people........
he may think of it as being helpful, but trust me im not alone when i say he offends some of us.

i agree, but i have had certain instances where mr. 5.0 has jumped on my case, and disrespected me and made me feel like a dumbass.......thats my problem.

You know, as I read on and on, most of what I saw was kinda off topic. Not that I would never go off topic on a subject, but there sure has been a lot of stating the same thing over, and over.

Actually, my biggest problem as I read this wasn't opinions, it was the sheer lack of respect to thoroughly READ what was posted before going off into a tizzy. This would apply to silver_pilate, and Ponycar_302. Had you bothered to adaquately READ what was written, you would have noticed what Mustangbelle306 wrote into her second post. Guess what it was? Resources. That tells me right there that you didn't read what was said, and you shouldn't be commenting on anything posted. You stepped into a heated debate without all the information, and with a great deal of class, she didn't point that out and rip you a new one like I'm doing right now. If you're going to disagree, please try to at least read the entire post of the person you're disagreeing with.

I would agree the EPA is populated with Eco-Nazi's, and they really do hate the automobile. Most of them see the numbers they want, use a flawed method of calculating data, and release a finding that is totally false.

Anybody who would argue a point made about internal combustion engines being machines that pollute is a wack job. Anybody who would argue they are the end of mankind, is an equal wack job. Catalytic converters are kinda unnecessary if you know much about today's engines. They run VERY clean, which leaves very little for the cats to do. Cats correct problems that haven't much existed since the inception of multiport fuel injection engines. As time has gone on, cars have become FAR more fuel efficient, and way cleaner. The amount of unburned fuel in the exhaust is pretty minimal. Most well tuned cars would probably pass inspection without any cats at all. I laugh at the fact most emissions control devices are meant to perform at engine idle, where the car spends little of it's time. I guess I'm a little off topic now, on the technical issues surrounding pollution and cars altogether.

Anyway. I think I can say this with certainty. Mr 5 0 can usually fend for himself just fine, and last I checked, he's quite good at it. While you "stealing his thunder" isn't really annoying to me, the constant leg humping you do on all of his posts is rather old, silver_pilate. If you have an opinion, feel free to state it, but restating what Mr 5 0 thinks is right, I agree with Mr 5 0, Mr 5 0 is my hero, I love Mr 5 0 makes me wonder if you have a poster of his avatar over your bed that you consider to be your prized possession.

Back to the real topic. Good paper. I agree with data and ideas being bent to reflect a certain point of view, especially when they come from a government.

Personnal opinions should never be included for a grade on a paper. He said it was a well written piece, and as "teacher" he gave it an "A." As "friend" he didn't agree.


No it isn't. The subject of a paper is revealed in the first sentence. Your subject and conclusion are two different topics.
That is your topic. You only covered one of your topic points in the body of the paper; the health effects. You failed to cover how it causes pollution WHEN COLD and how it ATTEMPTS TO WORK WHEN HOT.
That is your conclusion. At no point was the premis of becoming an active part of your future mentioned in the topic. Your paper is non sequitur; the conclusion does not follow the premises.
It was not a colloquial piece; it was a formal piece. For instance, you described what a cat was in simple terms so anyone could understand. In colloquial, or informal, writing you would have said it was a round thingy filled with some sort of chemicals and such.


I have a BS/MS PHD in Critical Thinking and Writing. For a highschool piece this is a good paper. Let us know what you get on it. I know what you originally intended with it. When I answered I was just expanding on the subject, as I am now. I never meant to offend you, Belle.

Oh, and nobody wears heels to work on a car. J/K :D

HA HA HA HA HA HA LMFAO

Not neccessarily; most of what was written was an expansion of the topic in one way or the other, either by Belle, or someone else. Even you got off topic. I read everything written. What I wrote is called constructive criticism. She claimed it was interesting in the first line of the post. Interesting to whom? Were we simply supposed to read it and expound on the greatness of the article? If so, she should have said that. (No offense, Belle.)



I seem to recall how you jumped all over someone who started a thread about their post count. As I recall, that is a big gripe of Belle's too. Who is leg-humping whom? Here is the thread for reference: Post Counts You have to be the rudest person on this board-- or at least you were until I got here. :D

Catalytic converters again
 

Do you?

I'll pass on both any further comments (I know when I've overstayed my welcome on a thread) and the pointless arguments some would attempt to pursue over some alleged grievience or other they wish to avenge or whine about. Life is too short and frankly, I have other venues in which to post and debate more serious issues that concern me.

Again, sorry if you feel your thread was misunderstood. It happens, but comment is what we do on this forum, it's no one's private editorial page, and that includes me.

I have no intention of trying to be everyone's buddy and agree with things I don't agree with or let inane statements (no, not anything you've posted) stand unchallenged. No apology.

I won't engage in flame wars or get overly personal but I will state what I think and defend it on any issue I feel strongly about. I expect other members to do the same, whithout resorting to name-calling and other pointless types of flaming.

This one is getting stale anyway but I wanted to make one final attempt to convince you that there was no intention on my part to be confrontational or argue unnecessarily.

I attempted to make my points rationally and in a way that might encourage interest. It would seem that I've at least partially failed. Better luck next time.

All of you observe: THIS is where I get defensive. ;)

I said it was for a ******* newspaper. So, I'm supposed to write an editorial, send it to a newspaper, and call it a ******* round thingy? That's retarded, and I would NEVER refer to ANYTHING in that manner, even in email. That's vague and a waste of time...pretty shitty advice coming from an individual that has obviously gone to school in this area...

Do me a favor, from now on, come on out and insult me bluntly, instead of being cute by calling my work "high school" quality. This is a pretty elementary method of pissing me off, and I'm embarassed to say, it was quite effective.

I'm obviously enrolled in a university, since I referred to my instructor as a PROFESSOR. If you knew me at all, you would have understood that the REASON I referred to it as colloquial is because I am a college student that happens to be an outstanding writer, and this piece was in no way indicative of my usual work.

Furthermore, I was taught in both high school and college that it is extremely poor form to merely restate your thesis. The entire point of a paper is to reach conclusion, correct? Yes! So MY conclusion is that the public can be involved in the products that they are FORCED to purchase (emissions equipment on vehicles) and that EPA regulations on emissions are CRAP because its another round of problems. That was derived from my body paragraphs.

You ARE correct that I did not cover the hot/cold issue, and truthfully I did not realize that until now. I slapped it together, and I had started writing a paragraph explaining how the "supposed" pollution is almost all emitted when the car is cold, and minute amounts overall. I suppose I got lazy and forgot to insert it in the paper, and something that I should have caught during revision.

Ok, I'm done.

Re: Catalytic converters again
 

Splendid. Another example. If you'd care to scroll back a few posts, I already acknowledged that I cannot control what others post, and that is life. I completely understood your explanation of your intentions, and I thank you for taking the time to do so.

In fact, I would be done with this post as well, if some ******* hadn't brought my writing style and quality *(completely unrelated) into the discussion. I'm tempted to delete it actually, because I feel like an *** for even falling for it.

Belle ~ out.

That is the point I was trying to make. YOU said it was a colloquial piece and it wasn't; it was a formal piece.

Sorry, I seriously thought you were a highschool senior.

Yes.... a conclusion which supports your opening paragraph. You veered off topic in your conclusion.

Your professor should have caught the things I did. Out of curiousity, what school do you attend and what year are you in?



I have to agree with you there. :D

Oh yes, let me quickly post my school name so everyone can be sure to not send their children, in light of their obviously HORRIBLE English program.

VIRGINIA TECH!! Quick!! Write it down before you make the same mistake I did!

I'm flabbergasted at your remarks...saying I am in high school? What college I go to? You are in the same boat as me for not showing your age.:rolleyes: THAT is high school ****...There have been several people on this site that have commented in threads that they are surprised to discover I am 20 years old. Guess you proved em' wrong, tiger. Congrats! :)

Just the fact that you are viewing a presumed submission to a paper as a standard 5 paragraph "formal" writing piece makes it clear you are attempting (and yes, succeeding) at invoking a heated response from me. Many times I have incited arguments unintentionally with my posts, I certainly would not purposely set out to do so...I think you'd fit in better at the Corral.

Lemme dumb it down for you there, Einstein. When she was talking about catalytic converters producting nitrous oxide, and other harmful chemicals, that would be considered pollution.

Pollution: The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.

Describing it in simple terms like she did would have made the piece colloquial, not formal.

If you were an elementary school teacher in reading and writing, you'd probably perform adaquately. At home courses for which you earn your degree's with a C- average are unimpressive.

I happend to notice you telling her to post sources for her information about 4 1/2 hours after she did. Are your reading skills that much worse than your writing skills Mr. Degree?

As far as me leghumping, I agree or disagree with points made, and give MY opinion on them. Just because my opinion happens to be the same as somebody elses does not mean I'm leg humping. If I were to follow on every post Mustangbelle306 made, agreeing with every comment, then I would be leghumping. Instead, I just choose to pick on people who obviously know little about what they are talking about. It makes it easier. Like what I'm doing with you right now. You are certainly correct about me being blunt, and rude on occation. I just have a low tolerance for people who think they know more than they do.

Nah, you are by far the biggest ******* I've ever seen on this board, and that's coming from ME (which says alot). Other people might get into arguments and disagree, as we all do at one time or another, but you purposefully irritate people with such glee, I was admittingly taken aback.

Constructive criticism is aimed to improve something/someone. I love it, I've even posted a full thread REQUESTING it. You, do not provide it. You just love to provoke reactions, which is ******* childish as hell, and surprising for someone who is so educated. Interesting that you insisted on proclaiming your degrees as license to be an authority on the written word...I only disclosed my post high school education to correct your mistake.

I wrote it was INTERESTING because its another one of those topics that the media would NEVER touch, such as how recycling plants take up 13 slots on the Superfund list of toxic waste sites that are waiting for clean up (just a random example)...gee...maybe that's why I added the poor writing disclaimer originally...wasn't looking for praise, my writing is one of few traits that I have confidence in.

I'm going to stop responding to your posts now, because despite your one helpful point about my lack of mentioning the pollution at start up, its obvious you don't really give a **** about the topic OR my writing...hope this has been amusing.

Belle.

I am 29, and I went to Penn State University. I was just asking a question. There is no need for a tantrum.

Unit, I try not to resort to name calling, but you have to be the stupidest person I have ever had the pleasure of debating. You have proved me wrong on nothing, yet you claim you have. I am rather proud that you can read and quote a dictionary. Good for you. "You failed to cover how it causes pollution WHEN COLD and how it ATTEMPTS TO WORK WHEN HOT." That is what I said. That is not what the paper said. Go read it again.

True. At least I can adaquately perform. You cannot even debate intelligently. You resort to name calling. I have been following your posts.
I was concuring with what someone else said. I wasn't trying to make an original point. Did you even notice that I quoted him?
No you don't. You use certain topics to go off into a rant, calling people names when they don't agree with you. This is you pulpit, Mr. Torquemada.
Like you? I was trying to help Belle, and inadvertantly insulted her. It was not my intention. You just yap at anyone who will listen.

Unit, shall we PM? I believe we've strayed too far from the main topic. Again, Belle, I'm sorry.

*sigh* who even cares anymore. :(

Let's just all agree to end this idiotic thread...I don't believe in deleting first posts, etc...so I'll just quit. I trust the both of you will do the same.

Belle

azz whippens!
 

i say we have a Mustang Works get together. we would rent an auditorium, and have a royal rumble and we all can beat the living **** out of each other!:D

im game!:D

That's what I tried to do (constructive criticism). Sorry, I didn't want to incite you, which I've apparently done. It was an honest mistake thinking you were in highschool. My best friends daughter is a junior in highschool and writes editorials for the local paper. It's not that unusual for a HS student. Again, I'm sorry.

If you knew what a BS/MS PHD actually was you'd laugh. Along those same lines....
You are the authority on assholes? (That is a blatant flame.)No, not really; however, you will not make me feel bad. If you would have expressed yourself better, instead of calling me names and going off into a tantrum, I probably would. You come across as spoiled and childish. Oh, and no, you're not getting your monies worth out of you professor. I was honestly trying to help. I guess I didn't make a new friend with you. Oh well.

Yay! You got in the last word! :)


I agree SRV! I've been wanting to kick your sorry butt for a while now...I'm bringing ALL the chairs in my house, so watch out! ;) :D

Sorry, I was typing and this didn't come up until I was done. I agree.

BRING IT BABE!

OH! I GOT A OAK TABLE WITH YOUR NAME ON IT! I DARE YOU!

Can't we all just get along? :confused:

*the Barney theme song starts to play* :D

ok that just sent me into foaming-at-the-mouth hysterics and RAGE :mad: :mad: :mad:

I ******* HATE that monstrosity of a furry dino....*argh*

:D

NO! DON'T THINK YOUR GETTING AWAY WITH ANYTHING EITHER! I HAVE YOUR FRIGGEN NAME ON A ROLLING PIN!

Wow... look what I missed!! :eek:

*backs out and closes the door!!*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!:D :D :D

Thread Closed
 

Unfortunately this thread has degenerated into a shouting match and is getting silly.

Everyone made his or her points quite awhile ago and there is little left to say. What there is left to say can be done with PM or regular e-mail.

Thread closed.

Thanks for the input.