Thread: TTP rules question

Originally Posted by Evil

Psst..it's capitalism, not capitolism.

its the internet, nobody spells anything right

Originally Posted by X-C

You're an idiot.

Now rather than be imature and start name calling, how bout you find something to back up that statement
by just saying "your an idiot" makes you seem like one because you have not shown any proof of such
so

Originally Posted by steven

little cars suck, if someone slams into you while your driving around in you little bucket, you are way more likely to get hurt or die, than any other car or whatever you drive, the only benefit they have is better gas mileage, besides that...lose

That's not really true, that's what non-scientists would lead you to believe. Big doesn't necessarily mean safe, SUVs, since they were originally (I forget if they still are) considered for safety purposes to be trucks, didn't really have to have any safety features on the rear passenger compartment(where the truck bed would have been). You think small cars are unsafe? Check out the Autobahn and see how big the average car moving at high speed is. I'll bet they're smaller than an SUV.

Originally Posted by Huffardo

Yeah, anything beyond approximately -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit) is rather unpleasant as everything on the bike tends to freeze stuck and the effort needed to pedal anywhere with the one gear you are stuck in is greatly increased. When it's warmer outside winter cycling isn't that bad, at least if you don't mind looking like a terrorist (a balaclava is quite necessary when it is real cold and windy, but take it off before entering a bank...).


A bit of exercise wouldn't hurt old men like you either. Unless you are in too bad shape of course, my grandmother recently had to stop biking due to her bad knees. She is 76 years old though, so she can afford the extra time it takes to walk everywhere.

Heh, my bike only has one gear, I guess I'd be more concerned with the difficulty presented by the rubber tires freezing to the ground.

Originally Posted by Nuke

Well, now would be a good time to convert to hydrogen fuel. We have the technology, now all we need is to make it cheaper to produce and expand the hydrogen fuel business.

Ethanol, on the other hand, needs to be eliminated. Whatever genius thought it would be a good idea to turn a portion of our already stretched food supply into gas should have been aborted.

Hydrogen might look like a way to go, but it just shuffles the gas issue onto the overall energy issue. We'd need to focus on wind energy, sea energy, geothermal energy, and non-photovoltaic solar power, something which for some reason seems unpopular in the USA.

Sugar-based ethanol? Yeah, it's a piss-poor decision. Cellulosic ethanol seems the way to go, and switchgrass is pretty much a perfect plant (nothing eats it, it grows everywhere in the USA), and it boasts a significantly higher energy return than ethanol does.

Why all of this hate on X-C? He doesn't spell something correctly or use a phrase correctly, suddenly, he's a dumb cunt. Nitpick much? Thunder jumped on the bandwagon why?

Cowboy, this isn't a government problem. It's a people problem. The day people realize they are paying $600 for defective shit is the day . . when some shit happens. I had something, then I forgot what it was.

And for the record, I always though it was "All intents and purposes." I don't hear it often and I've never seen it written down.

Originally Posted by Satanic Plumber

Why all of this hate on X-C?

Because it's easy.

because whenever I post something he always replies: your an idiot
which really makes him look stupid because by saying something immature like that, without even stating why he believes so, or not even bothering to point out flaw in the post
Oh and he thinks he's always right