The Shitbird

Scylla said:
What the ULEV actually means is that the car produces 50% or less emissions than the average of that model year which is significantly better than you implied.
Click to expand...
Exactly as i said. It's a comparative rating. You do know what comparative means, don't you?

Let's remember, shall we, what started the whole thing: elucidator made the following comment:
elucidator said:
The bird shits on your truck. Your truck shits in his air. Look at it from his point of view.
Click to expand...
Instead of just laughing at what was, i'm sure, intended as nothing more than an amusing observation and a humorous suggestion to look at your situation from the bird's point of view, you turned around and said:
Scylla said:
In point of fact, the Honda Ridgeline is a ULEV, an "Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle."

So, no.
Click to expand...
Nice sense of humor there, douchewad.

Also, your response implied not just that your truck is a low-emission vehicle, but that it put NO shit into the air at all. Which is why i made my post, you screaming sack of guano.
Scylla said:
My truck is an '06, not a '10. Even if it a was a '10, none of this contradicts my statement that the truck is ULEV.
Click to expand...
So, does an '06 get better or worse emission levels than a '10? If it's better, then Honda must be about the only manufacturer that does not improve its emission levels over time. You're making my case for me.

Also, i never contradicted your claim that it was a ULEV, so you can shove that strawman up your tailpipe. I was pointing out that, contrary to your implication, low emissions does not mean no emissions.
Scylla said:
MPG is not a measure of emissions you ignorant dissembling shitbird, so... still no.
Click to expand...
It's true that MPG is not a direct measure of emissions.

However, emissions are, for each car, emitted in proportion to the amount of fuel used. So, all other things being equal, if two cars have equally clean engines but different mileage ratings, the one with lower mileage will emit more pollutants. Is that too hard for your smog-addled pea-brain to cope with?
Scylla said:
If an individual wished to comment on the environmental responsibility of my choice of the Ridgeline in a responsible and intelligent fashion, than one would need to know the criteria that went into that choice, the intended usage of the vehicle, and then one might have some data on which to make a judgement.
Click to expand...
I don't give a flying fuck that you own a Ridgeline. I care even less about your day-to-day activities. I recognize that there are good reasons to have a large 4WD vehicle with considerable cargo space. Still doesn't make 17mpg combined anything other than a really bad fuel efficiency number.
 
Look, at least you were smart about it, and sat behind the truck. You sould have sat off to the side, in which case we would probably be hearing how much you spent on a new driver's door window.

Also, there are companies who will install just the new mirror portion for around 40 bucks. I know, because I have had it done.
 
Rand Rover said:
Nice how the Threadshitbirds showed up to provide us all with an authentic experience of discovering shit where it isn't really necessary. Since I park my car in a garage, the Threadshitbirds really brought the story home for me. Thanks guys!
Click to expand...

You park the car yourself? You don't have people for that sort of thing?
 
Frank said:
Look, tdn, it's a disgusting story. It's a story of a man who decided to kill an animal merely because it inconvenienced him. I can think of plenty of valid reasons to kill wildlife, but doing it because it shit in his car when he left his windows down is not one of them. If you believe that my response to that story is acting like a jackass, that's your privilege.
Click to expand...

The bird lived. The mirror got broken.

It's not like it isn't totally obvious that you were just posting to be an asshole, but pretending for a moment you had some noble outrage over abused wildlife, than why would you reiterate your "disgust' when the story concludes with me breaking my mirror (thus hurting myself) as a direct consequence of my misplaced anger towards the bird?

The story shows the folly of the viewpoint that you claim to condemn as your motivation for posting.

If you weren't posting just to be an asshole than why didn't you modify your stance on the story based on the outcome?

Seeing as it actually supports your viewpoint, and agrees with you, what's the problem?
 
Thank you. Good post.

I'm reminded of a story that I'm fond of telling about a pregnant woman I used to know. It's not the funniest story ever told, and I'm not the best story teller ever, but nonetheless I find it amusing and I hope that others will find it so as well.

It starts out "So I knew this woman who was, like, in her 14th month of pregnancy."

What happens -- ALWAYS -- is some fanboy wanker buzzkiller will pipe up with "14 months? Women never go past nine months! Are you stupid or something? Don't you know anything about pregnancy?" I will then get a stern lecture on female reproductive biology, accompanied by some put-downs of how ignorant I am about that particular subject.

Thanks for ruining the momentum of my story, asshole. We're all duly impressed with your vast knowledge THAT EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS. The only tiny gaps in your otherwise perfect brain are 1) realizing that there's such a thing as hyperbole, and 2) it's impolite to interrupt a storyteller. I bow to your superior brain, though I'm hardly impressed with your social skills.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY! There is an ever-increasing epidemic of lack-of-a-true-sense-of-humoritis going on. Apparently, the only thing that is funny in this day and age (for some folks), is something that includes vast quantities of profanity, or crudity.

And by the way, women DO go past 9 months. The average gestation period for humans is 40 weeks (and some of us DO go over). At 4 weeks per month, that's 10 months. Tell those who don't get the hyperbole to put THAT in their pipes and smoke it! :D
 
Shitbird shitting in the break of day,
Take this shiny truck and make it scowl,
All your life
You were only waiting for this mirror to befoul.

Shitbird shitting in the afternoon,
Take this open window and go inside,
All your life
You were only waiting for this Honda to deride.

Shitbird shit. Shitbird shit.
Onto the door and more on the floor.

Shitbird shit. Shitbird shit.
Onto the door and more on the floor.

Shitbird shitting in the break of day,
Take this shiny truck and make it scowl,
All your life
You were only waiting for this mirror to befoul.
You were only waiting for this mirror to befoul.
You were only waiting for this mirror to befoul.

With apologies to Paul McCartney.
 
You guys better watch your step, Scylla's got a pellet gun, and he knows how to use it. Sorta.
 
....What happens -- ALWAYS -- is some fanboy wanker buzzkiller will pipe up ...
Click to expand...

And yet, you apparently keep doing it. Want to share with the group your feelings about that?
 
http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=4986972&song=Flight+of+the+Foo+Birds

Count Basie - Flight of the Foo Birds .mp3
 
mhendo said:
Exactly as i said. It's a comparative rating. You do know what comparative means, don't you?
Click to expand...

You said it means that it's just "better than average." That wasn't and still isn't true. ULEV means 50% better than average.

It's true that MPG is not a direct measure of emissions.

However, emissions are, for each car, emitted in proportion to the amount of fuel used. So, all other things being equal, if two cars have equally clean engines but different mileage ratings, the one with lower mileage will emit more pollutants. Is that too hard for your smog-addled pea-brain to cope with?
Click to expand...

Sure. Apparently it's too complex for you though. Emissions are measured not in fuel used but in miles driven. There is no relationship between MPG and emissions in the standards, so you are exactly wrong. Two cars with equal engines under 2006 California ULEV standards and different MPGs will still produce the same emissions per mile.

Both the EPA and California (ULEV is a CA standard) calculate emissions by assuming 12,000 miles per year of driving.


I recognize that there are good reasons to have a large 4WD vehicle with considerable cargo space. Still doesn't make 17mpg combined anything other than a really bad fuel efficiency number.
Click to expand...

No. It's not. I realize your really stupid, but try to understand; 17mpg might be bad for a subcompact car. It is good for a vehicle with 4wd and that hauling and cargo capacity.

I have equivalent bed space and much more cargo space in the Ridgeline than I would in a 2003 f-250 truck extended cab. In the real world I averaged about 14mpg with that truck. In the real world, I am averaging about 22 with the Ridgeline. Check those figures the forums of owners who post their MPG and you will find them consistent.

I have more cargo space than a heavy duty extended cab pickup truck. I have the load and towing capacity of a full sized pickup truck (1,500 and 5,000 pounds respectively.)

I know this because I researched it before I bought, and because it replaced a 2003 f250.

The 17mpg is really good for the capabilities. I looked, and I couldn't find any other vehicle for the consumer market that could compete on the criteria of price, emmissions, mpg, and even come close to the cargo and hauling capacity.


So no 17mpg is not a bad number.
 
What are you going to tell your wife when it starts shitting on the windshield?
 
I am just amazed that one of the biggest shitbirds in these here parts hasnt shown up. I guess I am just a cynic.
 
Great idea for a movie! All the birds, see, start to take revenge against people for...what? Really? No shit? Well, damn....
 
Like they say, if you look around the thread and can't tell where the biggest shitbird is...
 
Back
Top