Bill,
I fear my English heredity has got me into trouble again! My comments
where "tongue in cheek". Thus my remarks were NOT in favour of ANY
practice that contributes to our sadly polluted, animal endangered and
overburdened earth. I thought "Daddy's yacht" would have been a dead
giveaway. My Daddy does not have a yacht - - - it's my mother's (you see,
there I go again!). So that beer can you saw was NOT mine, neither was it
my oil!
So you can take it I am against your biologist and I am against running
classics without taking due care about pollution. Now had you said that
you tuned your car so that the exhaust was as free from pollution as
possible I would have been silent as many "old" cars steam through
pollution tests!. But just to say to hell with it my contribution is so
small....... - (like the beer can and the oil spots on the ocean!!!)
At 10:21 PM 1/16/02 -0500, Bill Saidel wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Barrie Robinson wrote:
>
> > Oh you are so right! That's the way I feel when I throw my empty beer can
> > in the forest - I mean who's going to walk past there again? Same with
> > emptying the bilges of my Daddy's yacht in the ocean - I mean who's going
> > to see those blobs of oil in that vast expanse of sea.
>
>Maybe I'm a bit thin skinned about your glib response, but since I saw
>your damn beer can during my walk in the forest two days
>ago and sat in your damn oil globule that reached the beach I went to
>last summer, they
>are seen, they are measureable and your off handed response
>adds only useless noise to this discussion.
>
>As I remember, your comments about MG's are really much
>better than this.
>
>Bill
>
> >
> > At 08:30 PM 1/16/02 -0500, Bill Saidel wrote:
> > >Hi Jack,
> > >
> > > I used to collect shells during SCUBA diving and worried a small
> > >amount about the ethics of taking a live animal from the ocean to die so I
> > >could harvest its artifact, a shell.
> > > So I asked a malacologist friend about it, a honcho prof from Harvard,
> > >and she laughed at me. Take a 100. Take a 1000. It won't matter so long as
> > >their environment is undisturbed. They make many, many babies and one
> > >fool-hardy or 10 fool-hardy collectors won't interfere with the evolution
> > >and ecology of that species.
> > >
> > >I took her message to heart.
> > >
> > >Anyway, when I removed the smog equipment from my 76B during my
> > >replacement of the ZS with SU's, I didn't worry much at all. I drive a few
> > >thousand
> > >miles at the most. Trucks drive many times that and generate levels of
> > >pollution (if that is your concern) that my B could only dream about.
> > >I started thinking about how many antique cars drive in New Jersey and
> > >what would the pollution generation be from all of them if they all
> > >removed their emission's stuff. Would it be measureable? I seriously
> > >doubt it. Are you adding a debt to the environment? Unmeasureable.
> > >Don't worry. B happy...or be a happy B'er and do as you need to keep
> > >your vehicle in the shape you want it to be in.
> > >
> > >my 2 cents :)
> > >
> > >Bill Saidel
> > >'76B
> > >
> > > > Time to make a decision. The new 1 3/4 carb intake manifold would need
> > > > adapting to be able to fit the gulp valve. It would be easy to just
> remove
> > > > all the emission control stuff.
> > > >
> > > > The car always passed the emission control test with the stuff in
> > > place, but
> > > > now that I have Illinois Antique plates I don't have to do the emission
> > > > test. I could also use the canister space for the vacuum head of the
> > > planned
> > > > cruise control.
> > > >
> > > > To remove, or not to remove. What are your thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> > >Bill Saidel
> > >Rutgers University
> > >
> > >"Sacred cows make divine hamburgers."
> > >
> > Regards
> > Barrie
> >
> > Barrie Robinson - barrier@bconnex.net
> >
Regards
Barrie
Barrie Robinson - barrier@bconnex.net
///
/// mgs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
///
|