The Shrine

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/carreview ... index.html

Pretty cool.

Yes well hopefully the price-tag will come down in the next 10-20 years.

Guys, I need you to do me a favor.

I need the both of you to think about that article for a few minutes until you realize that the guy who wrote it, the editor who approved it, and the subject matter itself are all monstrously stupid, and why people reading and believing crap like this will result in an unaware America going to hell in a handbasket in a few years.

Thanks.

Agent 57 wrote:Guys, I need you to do me a favor.

I need the both of you to think about that article for a few minutes until you realize that the guy who wrote it, the editor who approved it, and the subject matter itself are all monstrously stupid, and why people reading and believing crap like this will result in an unaware America going to hell in a handbasket in a few years.

Thanks.

Your post was devoid of any reasons for why this is so. Explaining your position will be more effective than condescension.

Dont you remember the long post about oil depletion he posted a while ago?

Yes, I do, and I remember that it's a big issue to him. But I think my point still stands.

Yeeeeeah, I'm going to have to go with Kupek on this and say that until you respond with a valid, reasoned response I'm going to ignore you.

Heaven forbid I'm not an expert on the ins-and-outs of automotive fuel technologies. I skimmed the article, it looked interesting, I posted it so that people could comment on it. And when I say "comment on it", I meant intelligent, informative responses. Guess I should have been more clear on that.

The costs and oil consumption needed to find and create the alternative souces almost negates the usefulness of some of the sources we are seeking.

Hydrogen is an example, it just isnt useful enough to be worth it.

Here is an article i found real fast, not the best but it exposes some of hydrogen's shotcomings:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfron ... 75_01.html

Flip wrote:The costs and oil consumption needed to find and create the alternative souces almost negates the usefulness of some of the sources we are seeking.

Hydrogen is an example, it just isnt useful enough to be worth it.

Here is an article i found real fast, not the best but it exposes some of hydrogen's shotcomings:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfron ... 75_01.html

Now that's constructive. Thanks, Flip!

If this stuff is actually economical, people would've already made them. I remember reading how people say you can use all kinds of stuff to substitute for petroleum and it'd be cheaper/more efficient/whatnot. If that was actually possible, whoever is selling the petroleum would be doing this already and tell you this is really petroleum.

Now you can say new technology might need subsidizing to get off the ground, but generally capitalism has been pretty good at finding the next get rich quick scheme without much help from the government. So I'm inclined to believe none of the alternatives are at a stage where it's actually feasible.

First of all, I want to clarify exactly what my original reply was saying.

It was not "omg that article is dumb", which, made as a simple statement of opinion, I will agree is completely invalid and adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever if not backed up.

However, it was actually "omg you need to think about that and realize that article is dumb", which is both a statement of opinion and an exhortation for the reader to do further critical thinking and research on the subject on his own. We're all smart people here and we know how to use Google, so I didn't think this was an unreasonable request - I figured if Lox was interested enough in hydrogen cars to post an article on them and Eric was interested enough in them to post a reply, they would also be interested in the far more important subject of where the hydrogen for those cars is going to come from.

(That's why the article was so stupid, by the way - the author mentions nothing about the feasibility/costs of upgrading our current refueling infrastructure to service hydrogen cars (which will be astronomical), not to mention the chicken and the egg problem of how no one will buy hydrogen cars until there is sufficient refueling infrastructure in place, which nobody will build until enough people buy hydrogen cars, and so on; mentions nothing about how unless we perfect nuclear fusion, hydrogen will always be a net energy loser, meaning we will spend more energy creating the hydrogen than we will get out of using it; mentions nothing about the fact that in a hydrogen car society, the pollution from driving those cars simply gets moved from the cars themselves to the manufacturing process of the fuel; and yet at the end of the article insinuates that hydrogen car technology can solve our oil dependency and air pollution problems and considers the price of the cars as the only real obstacle to their being "the car of the future".

Oh, and why didn't I write the above in the first place? I was at work when I first saw Lox's post, and I didn't have a ton of time to write - on the other hand, I've been trying to write this post for over two hours now.)

Secondly, yes, my post was condescending. A simple "guys, please do more research on the feasibility of hydrogen as a car fuel" would have done the trick, I realize that now. But this sort of thing - where the mainstream media puts out something which presents alternative energy technologies as having the capacity to seamlessly continue the American suburban sprawl, drive-everywhere way of life after oil ceases being cheap enough to do so (when they will be able to do no such thing), while glossing over the tremendous obstacles in place - really gets my hackles up. The reason why is because if the mainstream media accentuates the positive while ignoring the negative, then the people who read those articles will do the same, thus ensuring that there will always be plenty of popular opposition to doing the things that will be necessary to ensure a smooth transition to the post-cheap oil world, and plenty of popular support for doing the things that maintain the status quo for as long as possible, regardless of how destructive those actions may end up being in the future.

So yeah, I got pissed off at the article, and I got pissed off at the (perceived by me) mental laziness of Lox and Eric because I assumed in praising/agreeing with the article they glossed over the negative as well and didn't even bother to think that there may even be a negative, and I didn't have the time or the inclination to edit out that anger when I posted it. I'm mean sometimes.

However, Kupek and Lox, I think I'm even more annoyed at your reactions to my post.

Kup, this is the second time that you've responded to one of my posts in a thread in which you thought I was being condescending with nothing more than the statement that you thought I was being condescending. What I love about this is the two cases of delicious irony: first, of decrying me for adding nothing to the discussion while adding nothing to the discussion yourself; and second, by being the high-and-mighty I'm-so-pure-and-you're-such-shit forum cop - as neither one of the condescending posts was addressed to you - in these situations, you're actually being condescending by calling me condescending! (Hilarious, isn't it?)

And, let's not forget the fact that you said I had nothing to offer to this thread, even after Flip mentioned the peak oil topic I started in Ruminations a while back, which you said you remembered (and happens to still be linked from the main page of the Shrine), and has several detailed posts that I wrote on hydrogen's shortcomings as anything but a niche fuel. Perhaps you would have actually added something to this thread had you bothered to read it (or anything on the subject of hydrogen feasibility, for that matter).

Lox, I'm annoyed at you because that's basically what you did, which was to get insulted and then shut your brain off. You seem to have actually been interested in hydrogen feasibility after all, and yet it required Flip doing a five-second Google search and spoon-feeding you the link to get you to read anything about it. You're seriously going to tell me that you couldn't have done something like that yourself? (Ugh. Voluntary ignorance from smart people should be a criminal offense.)

Anyway, if this sort of thing happens again - and I'm not saying it will, but just in case - do me a couple of favors. Kup, if I act condescending again and you feel compelled to reply, say something like "Hey, 57's an asshole, but he's right" or "Hey, 57's an asshole, and he's wrong too". Lox (and anybody else I happen to do this sort of thing to, for that matter), suck it up, treat my posts like they're valid sources of information, take action and/or respond as appropriate, and then say "Hey 57, you're an asshole."

(Of course, I think I've just ensured that Kali O. will occasionally randomly respond to one of my posts with "Hey 57, you're an asshole" just for kicks. )

Agent 57 wrote:First of all, I want to clarify exactly what my original reply was saying.

It was not "omg that article is dumb", which, made as a simple statement of opinion, I will agree is completely invalid and adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever if not backed up.

However, it was actually "omg you need to think about that and realize that article is dumb", which is both a statement of opinion and an exhortation for the reader to do further critical thinking and research on the subject on his own. We're all smart people here and we know how to use Google, so I didn't think this was an unreasonable request - I figured if Lox was interested enough in hydrogen cars to post an article on them and Eric was interested enough in them to post a reply, they would also be interested in the far more important subject of where the hydrogen for those cars is going to come from.

That wasn't what came acrossed in the post. If that's what you mean, then say that. There's no reason to wrap it in condescension is all.

Agent 57 wrote:(That's why the article was so stupid, by the way - the author mentions nothing about the feasibility/costs of upgrading our current refueling infrastructure to service hydrogen cars (which will be astronomical), not to mention the chicken and the egg problem of how no one will buy hydrogen cars until there is sufficient refueling infrastructure in place, which nobody will build until enough people buy hydrogen cars, and so on; mentions nothing about how unless we perfect nuclear fusion, hydrogen will always be a net energy loser, meaning we will spend more energy creating the hydrogen than we will get out of using it; mentions nothing about the fact that in a hydrogen car society, the pollution from driving those cars simply gets moved from the cars themselves to the manufacturing process of the fuel; and yet at the end of the article insinuates that hydrogen car technology can solve our oil dependency and air pollution problems and considers the price of the cars as the only real obstacle to their being "the car of the future".

All of those are valid obstacles and I totally agree with you on it. Seriously, I'm not that interested in hydrogen fuel. I think you assumed that I was based on me posting a link to a news article on it. That's partially my fault and partially your fault. I should have stated that I merely skimmed the article and was posting more to see what everyone else thought of it. You shouldn't have assumed that I was devoted to examining all of the pros and cons of hydrogen fuel.

Agent 57 wrote:Oh, and why didn't I write the above in the first place? I was at work when I first saw Lox's post, and I didn't have a ton of time to write - on the other hand, I've been trying to write this post for over two hours now.)

Secondly, yes, my post was condescending. A simple "guys, please do more research on the feasibility of hydrogen as a car fuel" would have done the trick, I realize that now. But this sort of thing - where the mainstream media puts out something which presents alternative energy technologies as having the capacity to seamlessly continue the American suburban sprawl, drive-everywhere way of life after oil ceases being cheap enough to do so (when they will be able to do no such thing), while glossing over the tremendous obstacles in place - really gets my hackles up. The reason why is because if the mainstream media accentuates the positive while ignoring the negative, then the people who read those articles will do the same, thus ensuring that there will always be plenty of popular opposition to doing the things that will be necessary to ensure a smooth transition to the post-cheap oil world, and plenty of popular support for doing the things that maintain the status quo for as long as possible, regardless of how destructive those actions may end up being in the future.

Those are totally valid reasons to be upset with the mainstream media and the way they promote this kind of stuff. All I said was "pretty cool." I don't feel that there was anything in that to imply that I was accepting this guy's word as the gospel of hydrogen fuel. It meant "hmm...pretty cool...they actually have a car that runs on hydrogen fuel." Again, I should have specified that I merely skimmed the article in passing (while at work myself) and decided to post it to see what other's thought.

Agent 57 wrote:So yeah, I got pissed off at the article, and I got pissed off at the (perceived by me) mental laziness of Lox and Eric because I assumed in praising/agreeing with the article they glossed over the negative as well and didn't even bother to think that there may even be a negative, and I didn't have the time or the inclination to edit out that anger when I posted it. I'm mean sometimes.

However, Kupek and Lox, I think I'm even more annoyed at your reactions to my post.

Feel free to be annoyed, 57. I'm sorry that you are, but I feel like I had a valid reason to respond the way I did. Truthfully, I was a bit tired when I posted that and not in the mood for putting up with anything. Plus, there's never an excuse for condescension when you admit that we're all intelligent people, imo.

Agent 57 wrote:Lox, I'm annoyed at you because that's basically what you did, which was to get insulted and then shut your brain off. You seem to have actually been interested in hydrogen feasibility after all, and yet it required Flip doing a five-second Google search and spoon-feeding you the link to get you to read anything about it. You're seriously going to tell me that you couldn't have done something like that yourself? (Ugh. Voluntary ignorance from smart people should be a criminal offense.)

I said I was ignoring you, not the idea you presented. Again, you're assuming, man. You assume I didn't do any research myself, which is false. My response to Flip was a "thanks for doing what I feel Agent 57 should have done in the first place." Plus, if it was a 5-second Google search, then you could have done it just as quickly and added it to your post.

Agent 57 wrote:Lox (and anybody else I happen to do this sort of thing to, for that matter), suck it up, treat my posts like they're valid sources of information, take action and/or respond as appropriate, and then say "Hey 57, you're an asshole."

Hey, 57, you're an a-hole.

But, seriously, I know you know what you're talking about and I know you are a valid source of information. I was just annoyed at the way you handled it.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32869

I think this link will shed any light on the subject that we may need.

Actually, I think it'll be a funny read. I can't read it from work, it gets blocked. I'll try from home later.

Lox wrote:

It was actually "omg you need to think about that and realize the article is stupid"

That wasn't what came acrossed in the post. If that's what you mean, then say that. There's no reason to wrap it in condescension is all.

Well, if you reread the post, I did say it, nearly word-for-word, in fact. I just added a couple extra insults to the author & editor of the article, as they were the ones I was most angry with.

Okay, and the "I need you to do me a favor" and "thanks" bits were over the top. My bad.

All of those are valid obstacles and I totally agree with you on it. Seriously, I'm not that interested in hydrogen fuel. I think you assumed that I was based on me posting a link to a news article on it. That's partially my fault and partially your fault. I should have stated that I merely skimmed the article and was posting more to see what everyone else thought of it. You shouldn't have assumed that I was devoted to examining all of the pros and cons of hydrogen fuel.

Dude, I assumed the exact opposite, which was the reason I was annoyed at you! The author completely ignored the issue of hydrogen feasibility and yet still presented the hydrogen car as this wondrous technology that can save our asses - thus lulling everyone who reads it and fails to think about it further into a false sense of security - and your only comment was "pretty cool". I can't read your mind, and your comment indicated in no way that you did any more critical thinking about the issue than the article's author (which is none).

From my point of view, I saw from two people I like and respect the kind of mental laziness about a serious subject that, down the line, will result in a lot of people either starving, freezing to death, or getting drafted and sent over to the Middle East to get killed over there. Forgive me for getting a little worked up.

Feel free to be annoyed, 57. I'm sorry that you are, but I feel like I had a valid reason to respond the way I did. Truthfully, I was a bit tired when I posted that and not in the mood for putting up with anything. Plus, there's never an excuse for condescension when you admit that we're all intelligent people, imo.

Actually, there wouldn't be an excuse for condescension if I thought you guys were stupid, or if you were in fact stupid - a person can't change how smart they are.

What I was being condescending about was the fact that I thought you guys were willingly being mentally lazy, which, since it can easily be changed, is the kind of thing that annoys me. I have the same problem with fat people who complain that they can't lose weight when in fact they stop going to the gym after a month and cheat on their diets all the time (as a personal philosophy on this sort of thing, I essentially agree with Randal in the "you should shit or get off the pot" scene in Clerks).

It's symptomatic of what Jim Kunstler refers to as "our new national religion, which is based on the idea that it's possible to get something for nothing." Just because we're Americans doesn't mean that we're entitled to jack shit, and anyone who says differently - namely the politicians (and those who listen to them) who keep crowing that the American way of life is non-negotiable - really gets under my skin.

Yeah, I'll admit at this point that I benefit from the American way of life just like everyone else. I never go hungry if I don't want to; all of my food is grown, transported, and usually even prepared by other people; my house is 64 degrees inside when it's 10 degrees outside; and I have more worthless things that do nothing but provide me entertainment and detract from the living experience of other human beings on this planet than it should be allowable for a human being to have - but at least I don't take it for granted. I don't believe that I'm entitled to live a life of comfort that is the envy of a good portion of the world simply because of where I was born, and when it's taken away from me, I'm not going to whine like a bitch about it.

*realizes he's climbed up on soapbox and is madly off-topic*

*jumps back down*

I said I was ignoring you, not the idea you presented. Again, you're assuming, man. You assume I didn't do any research myself, which is false.

Then tell me these things in the first place! As I said before, I have nothing to go on but what you write in your posts - if I make an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information, I hardly see how I should be the one at fault here. It's like a teacher telling a student "2 + 2 = 5" and then marking him wrong on the test.

And if your reply to this is something along the lines of "well, you should ask me to clarify what I mean instead of making incorrect assumptions and going off on me", who in the flying hell does that on an internet forum?

My response to Flip was a "thanks for doing what I feel Agent 57 should have done in the first place." Plus, if it was a 5-second Google search, then you could have done it just as quickly and added it to your post.

I thought you were being mentally lazy. The last thing I wanted to do was do your thinking for you.

Hey, 57, you're an a-hole.

w00t! The first of many!

But, seriously, I know you know what you're talking about and I know you are a valid source of information. I was just annoyed at the way you handled it.

That's cool, man. You guys can be as pissed off at me when I pull this shit as you want - as long as the right information is absorbed in some way, I don't particularly care what you think of me.

(I can just see Kupek's reply to this part now, mostly because this is what he said to me last time - "By posting in the manner you do, you obscure your message and often the right information is rejected because of it."

To that I reply - well, if a person ignores valid information because they didn't like the tone of the presentation, then that person is an over-sensitive wuss. )

Agent 57 wrote:As I said before, I have nothing to go on but what you write in your posts - if I make an incorrect assumption based on incomplete information, I hardly see how I should be the one at fault here. It's like a teacher telling a student "2 + 2 = 5" and then marking him wrong on the test.

Well, the difference between this case and the teacher case is that the student should expect the teacher to be offering all relevant information because that's their job. I'm no teacher. I agree that, in many cases, it's perfectly acceptable to make assumptions based on a post alone. The cases where I feel the person should stop, think, and request further information is when they feel the urge to "go off" with that assumed information. I say this just because it can lead to misunderstandings such as these.

On a positive note, I respect you as well, which is why I do take your insight into this technology into account. You'll be happy to know that the topic came up at lunch today (the guy who originally emailed me the link brought it up) and I explained the cons that were not mentioned in this article and why this is not the "beacon of hope" that the article makes it seem to be.

Agent 57 wrote:Okay, and the "I need you to do me a favor" and "thanks" bits were over the top. My bad.

Those are actually the two pieces that irked me the most. Don't worry about it. I apologize for responding the way I did as well. Like I said, me being tired meant I wasn't in the best mindset when I responded.

Agent 57 wrote:Kup, this is the second time that you've responded to one of my posts in a thread in which you thought I was being condescending with nothing more than the statement that you thought I was being condescending. What I love about this is the two cases of delicious irony: first, of decrying me for adding nothing to the discussion while adding nothing to the discussion yourself; and second, by being the high-and-mighty I'm-so-pure-and-you're-such-shit forum cop - as neither one of the condescending posts was addressed to you - in these situations, you're actually being condescending by calling me condescending! (Hilarious, isn't it?)

I get annoyed when people are mean. I feel better when I call them out on it. I disagree that that is condescending or being high-and-mighty, nor do I think it matters that the posts weren't addressed to me (it's a public forum).

I didn't bring up any of the points you made because I figure that's your job. Not only in the sense that you brought it up, but also that I know you have a better understanding of the issue than me, and I would like to hear your analysis of the article. You're better equipped to talk about the issue than I am. That was the other reason why I said something: I wanted to hear what you had to say. I made a considerable effort to remove all sarcams from my reply so as to not piss you off unnecessarily. But if I'm going to call you on something, it's probably not going to make you happy. After a certain point, I figure it's not my responsibility to look out for your feelings.

Agenty 57 wrote:To that I reply - well, if a person ignores valid information because they didn't like the tone of the presentation, then that person is an over-sensitive wuss.)

I know you're joking around, but we all do it. We go on the defensive, don't want to concede anything, and think of ways to defend our position instead of reasoning through the points. To not do so requires a level of humility few of us posses.

Meh, Agent 57 doubled my sex life, no complaints here. ;o