Re: Historic gasoline prices, 1965-1978

You know, Doug, my feelings are hurt. I know that's silly and I know that's
irrelevant. Maybe I'm responding to you because while you are cynical, you
are not trying to be insulting to me. In many ways your response is pretty
much in the middle of what I'm hearing.

We were talking about the price of gas. I complained about the difficulty
of developing new technology. I answered people's questions the best I
could. That's all.

I didn't ask for investors. I didn't ask for praise. I didn't try to
publish a technical paper.

Now, I know I'm telling the truth, but I don't know how to prove what I
know, and I don't know that I even would be willing to give proof here. I
also don't know if I'll be part of the group that gets this to market.

I'm not ashamed of my ignorance about engines and motors. Nobody knows
everything. But that I don't know what you know, doesn't mean I can't know
something you don't know. This is new and very different. Can't you even
acknowledge that it might be true? That there might be something you don't
know?

Don't you at least think it would be nice if I were right? Can't you at
least wish me luck? After all, what if I am right? I'm very used to people
(master mechanics more than any others) not understanding this. Walter is
used to people needing to be convinced and watching the light dawn.

I did invest in this. Not a lot and not recently (it was before my husband
and I both became disabled). But that's not the point.

I do find this exciting. And I do believe in the joy of sharing excitement.
That's all.

Tina


"Doug Miller" <spambait@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c2MNe.3841$Z%6.3768@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <4307772c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Christina Peterson"
<tinapetrsn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >And *I* said it's new technology. You continually say that because old
> >technology is one thing that new technology is the same thing.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense. An engine CAN'T be
simultaneously
> two-cycle *and* four-cycle. Your ignorance of automotive engineering is
> allowing you to be duped.
>
> "Two-cycle four stroke engine" is nonsense, an inherent contradiction in
> terms. "Variable compression ratio carburetor" is *also* nonsense.
Carburetors
> have *nothing* to do with compression ratios. If you knew anything about
> engines, you would understand that.
>
> How much do you have invested in this scam, Tina?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reg. voice controlled wheel chair
    ... Responding to Peter V Rawlings... ... > insufficient mobility for conventional joystick control - ... "Forward" instruction then be activated. ... "technology" will be in the hands of corporate teams whose ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: (OT) : -wrt- Juvenile Irrational Name Calling
    ... Michael W. Bryant, Sullivan College of Technology & Design's premier lying dufus, wrote: ... It's like beaming sunlight onto a vampire's ... when someone starts responding to their BS. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: This may be the single most stupid thing Ive read in a very long time
    ... Certainly no technology or ... culture. ... that may be the stinkiest bate (or just another example of ... The post you're responding to is months old. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: How good IS BMWs 6 cylinder engine?
    ... the consensus is around here about BMW's engines. ... The BMW I6 is a sweet motor, and one of the main reason to buy a BMW. ... I think that everyone responding so far was in agreement...BMW makes a ...
    (alt.autos.bmw)
  • Re: Making money from Java
    ... figure out what you are responding to at times. ... Donald ... Sorry folks, this is down to limitations with Google so I'm having to ... adapt to the new technology which is not as good as the old technology ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)