Disclaimer

Not good brosef. Sounds serious, but fortunately he'll recover and ride another day.

You didn't start your own business to pay for school? Did you try borrowing money from your or her parents to finance her higher education? Hopefully you can get out of those gov't loans and get that interest rate dropped through private sector loan competition.

This makes me smile.

Given the economics of the situation... why would a prosecutor ever choose to prosecute a MM violation then? Maybe I'm still bitter they paid two guys (OSHP) to come to court on my speeding ticket. May you be as physically and mentally spry near retirement as you are now... I guess I don't see the problem. A lot of people bust their asses earlier in life to make the rest of their life easier. One less stressor on them regarding their retirement and if they're happy that their "top 3" years were early in their career, then to each their own. Unless they're blatantly lazy at their job, I wouldn't condemn them for not working an extra 10hr of OT per week when they want to get home and visit with their grandchildren or whatever. That's not "slacking" that's work-life balance... and I'd rather have someone that can focus on an issue with clarity, than some young hotshot that thinks they can be everything to everyone and ends up halfassing everything, "but they're getting so much done". Quality > quantity issue. I'm interested to hear what your definition of "a decent living" is... are they entitled to make as much money as a lawyer?

Does your wife have a single sister with as much or more disposable income?

It's this: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/snubbed.asp

S'all good Pauly. I was "venting" myself over some other things and deflected by getting.... passionate... about this thread. S'all good.

And obviously the "if you don't like it you can giiiiit out" is another illustration of the impracticality of that train of thought. The pure capitalists like to point out that you have "options" and vote with your dollars... that's pretty much the nuclear option -- leave. Additionally, is not really easy or effective to "vote with your dollars" when our country has a set infrastructure and demand for many products is for all intents and purposes -- inelastic. Regardless of all that... this thread was about E15, which turned into :villagers: about E10, which turned into a gov't bashing, science vs. mandate vs. personal anecdotes and political schpiel.... so we're way off topic now and the mods should probably move this to the political section (or R&R).

Hey man... its the conservatives preaching self reliance, pure unbridaled capitalism, and responsibility... so, yea that sounds about what they'd say. They can't complain about it only when it's not convenient for your lifestyle. But hey, whine and complain and vent on the interwebz all you want - we still <3 you (and it's the interwebz). You gotta pay to play. You don't hear guys with race engines complain about having to drive 50miles to get 110 octane... that's part of the deal. I still don't know why people are bitching about E15 or E10 when it's been implemented for years, studies have been done (I posted them), and manufacturers are aware. If you don't like what fuel is "convenient" for you to get, then you probably shouldn't buy something that requires you drive 50 miles to get it. Likewise, if you like the convenience of not having to cut your lawn with a reel mower, or not chopping trees with an axe, or riding your motorcycle instead of your bicycle AND want to use the fuel source closest to you to do that... then you should probably buy tools that are capable of reliably using that fuel source. It's not rocket surgery. You wouldn't go out and buy a diesel VW and bitch about not every station not having diesel would you? Or purchasing a CNG truck and get upset that the nearest filling station is 60 miles away? That's supposed to be rhetorical... who's fault is it that people take for granted that "gas is gas" when it's not? Education and personal responsibility. I thought that's what so many preach on here? But you're sarcastically mocking my sarcastic mocking when I show how absurd that line of thinking is... and the people that are upset about it prove they really want gov't nannies and OE equipment manufacturing nannies looking out for their best interests, to monitor and make sure they don't get E15 or E85 or Diesel or Propane or Kerosene in their "gasoline" vehicles.

This isn't about "winning" -- we're having a discussion, nothing more. And once my bike has fuel issues (and I've had a tank of bad gas here and there in both my bikes, which wasn't pleasant to diagnose since I didn't have a lot of experience), I'll gladly add my manufacturer to your list and reevaluate the root cause of the issue. I still don't don't believe it's the fault of the fuel, until someone (be it you, Ducati, etc) can show the fuel was not manufactured and/or dispensed to the FedGov published guidelines. Maybe that certain gas station that you frequent got a bad tank? Maybe their blender pump overblended the E10? Maybe Ducati's fuel tank supplier didn't properly treat the inside of the tanks and it's a manufacturing quality defect? I don't know. I just know my default response when there is an issue isn't "this is the (government's/Obama's/Republicans/EPAs/Democrats) fault" -- my default is to investigate a root cause and if I can assign fault there, great, but if the "responsible party" is really a complex network of multiple parties, I'm not pointing my finger at one an assigning all fault there just because I have a bias toward a certain political agenda. We're getting a little off-topic though. The issue of the thread was E15 and the outrage that it will bring. My whole initial point was -- go find me an E15 station to complain about and we'll have a discussion. It's WAY too early to fly off the handle about E15. Ohh, and I was curious about the history of E10... it was introduced as a response to the 1973 oil crisis, but here's a study on E20 done by Minnesota that compares the effects of E20 to E10: http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publications/renewable/ethanol/legrpt-ethanol-e20.pdf Since 1978...granted, that's just one study I pulled up (there are more), but then again it may be kind of tainted since it was put on by the Dept. of Agriculture (sell more corn!), and I don't know what their agenda may be or if it's neutral information. And this site had the best "timeline" I could find on ethanol issues: http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_fuel_history.html

Fill in the blank with all the companies you listed.

Ok... so it sounds like it's a Ducati issue, not a fuel issue. I'm sure Ducati is well aware of the fuel mandates here (considering E10 has been around for decades and you have a 2007 Duc according to your avatar lines) and should make products accordingly if they want to survive in the North American market. If they choose not to conform and they sell units with fuel tanks that fall apart every season, then you would think the capitalistic people will start buying products that don't do that given the fuel options they're limited to. Or, those people will still buy Ducatis and figure out some way to adapt the product or fuel sources themselves. Kind of like the people that make their own biodiesel. I still don't see this as a "blame the gov't" issue, when you could just as easily blame the Automotive and motorcycle OEs, or Big Oil, or Big Corn. EVERYONE has their hands in the cookie jar so to limit it to just one party at fault is silly. Cars, bikes, lawnmowers -- everything needs fuel, and if those companies aren't going into the petrol refining business to control that process, they're subjected to make products that tolerate the fuel that is produced by other companies or not sell their wares. And the process continues to snowball all the way up through lobbyists and the EPA, NHTSA... but with as slow as these processes typical move, the one truth is "It shouldn't come as a shock." But if you really want to know why these mandates are being passed down -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007

Well it does save the hassle of challenging all aspects of life... ain't nobody got time for dat. 3 tanks in 4 years? I've gotta think that's on you, not the gas. Or at least if you are so sure its the E10, you've made the choice to continue to fill your bike with it, which is still on you. Just like it would be on you if you ignored the labels, actually found a station that sold E15 and put that in your bike... your decision. For the money you've spent replacing tanks, I'd either get a different bike that can handle "shit gas", find a gas station that doesn't sell blended fuel and buy a drum of it each season, or figure out what needs modified on the tanks so you don't keep having to replace them. Or just keep doing your thing and spending your money.

I'm not the one complaining.

You wouldn't be subsidizing anything if you left America and renounced your citizenship. Another option.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner

What's the real issue again Pauly? No one is mandating you use E15... That's like being pissed that a bar has a $10 minimum when you could've just as easily went to Wendy's. I thought u conservotarians were all about free choice? E15 is an additional player to the market. You don't want it? Don't get it... or would you rather the gov't hold your hand to make sure your vehicles get the proper fuel and maintenance?

E15 Ethanol Fuel Can Damage Engines, New Automaker Study Says http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1076240_e15-ethanol-fuel-can-damage-engines-new-automaker-study-says Published May 16, 2012 So, basically what I get is... "ZOMFG!!11!11 Worry for nothing" -- you would have to actively seek E15 for your vehicle, or motorcycle, or lawnmower at this point. And if you weren't actively seeking E15 and stumbled upon an E15 pump and ignored the warning (proposed) You're the idiot. So once again, we have some politician outraged over something so focused and small it's not really on anyone's radar. He's the guy that would step on a $100 to pick up a dime.

EPA Wins Legal Battle Against Higher Ethanol Levels In Fuel http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1078608_epa-wins-legal-battle-against-higher-ethanol-levels-in-fuel Also

Before I make any hasty or rash accusations... I'm going to do more research on this. How many stations use blenders that will be affected? How much influence does the ethanol lobby have vs. the petroleum lobby (5% more ethanol = 5% less oil afterall)? What agenda does this representative have (besides his political affiliation)? What's in it for the EPA to do this? How far has this mandate gone? Is this just an idea that the EPA was kicking around and all of a sudden someone decided this would be great news to use to get the public "outraged" about the EPA? Or, is this ruling legal and done and the outrage is legitimate? Lots of questions...

Which one was the better ride?

Wait a second... I was on that ride. Nvm, I've ridden with Inya this year. Good thing I only PENCILED it in... eraser time.

If this is my only chance to ride with Inya this year... i may have to pencil it in.

2 weeks left in the 2012 season. I can only make it this week (Wednesday Sept 19th), so this is my last opportunity to go this year. I may be out there in my truck if I'm not feeling the two-wheel vibe tomorrow. $7 race or watch. I'll probably bump this tomorrow too.