Quote:
Originally posted by Ponycar_302
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. 
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....
|
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.