[Mr 5 0]

Mustangbelle:

Well, I am Mr. 5.0 and I read the EPA story you linked to with genuine interest, as you can imagine. (Thanks for the ping).

I had to go back and double-check my comments on your original 'EPA' thread but I'm gratified that the EPA, by it's own backpedaling on the catalytic converter issue, has essentially verified my views on this subject.

I'm also pleased that you readily acknowledge the connections I originally attempted to make between the EPA and the generally anti-automobile, long-range U.S. environmental policies they subscribe to.

'Belle', I won't assume to advise you on your career plans but yes, you may need to do some re-thinking if you intend to hold realistic, real-world, non-PC opinions regarding federal environmental policy and work as a 'conservative' (i.e. realistic) environmental engineer. Sad but true.

Re-reading my comments on the original thread (that caused so much controversy) I continue to stand by them and believe that the facts will also continue to bear out my conclusions regarding the EPA, catalytic converters and the general animus the EPA holds toward the gasoline engine and automobiles in general.

I do some research before I post opinions on specific, sometimes complicated issues regarding public policy. I don't argue with slogans but I do try to offer a bit of reasoned discourse on the subject at hand. Sometimes it's appreciated, sometimes it's ignored, sometimes opposed. In the end, it's all good.

Your genuine interest in the catalytic converter efficiency issue shows integrity and a willingness to explore all sides of the issue, not depending on others opinions - including mine - or the EPA's. I'm pleased that we basically agree here despite the unfortunate hassle the original thread generated.

Thanks for following this up and sharing it with us.