Why Assume Hybrid Means EcoNut?

So, I was searching for mention of hybrid cars and I came across a post that had the following points to make about the 'lousy implementation' of hybrids.

• They’re frighteningly expensive, especially considering what you get for your money
• They usually have HYBRID in 40-inch letters on the side and the back so that you can show everyone else on the road how much you care about the environment and how much they don’t
• They’re all uglier than Quasimodo with a bad case of bed-head, so even those who can’t read the 40-inch letters know what they’re seeing

Then the writer went on to mention the Dust-to-Dust study, which I think is garbage science. So, I posted the following:

Hybrid cars are not really more expensive than any other car. They are a few thousand more than the conventional car they are built off of, but you make up the difference in cost in gasoline savings. It takes anywhere from a year to 5 years to do it, but it does happen.

The Hybrid badging is important to safety personnel, if nothing else. They need to know what type of car they are dealing with in case of an emergency. And why not trumpet what type of car you are driving? You think people who drive Land Rovers or convertibles aren't looking for some attention? Why not be proud of your car?

And as for your third point, if you don't like the looks of a Prius, there's the Toyota Camry Hybrid, the Nissan Altima Hybrid, there are two Lexus: 450h and 400h, the Ford Escape Hybrid, the Mariner Hybrid, the Civic Hybrid and the Accord Hybrid. Are they all ugly cars in your opinion? If so, what type of car are you looking for?

And as for the CNW Marketing Dust - to - Dust study that article is based on, its all garbage. Please don't reference it. Even they backed off on the claims they made. As an example, they saidthe Prius would last 100,000 miles, while the Hummer will last 300,000 miles. Do you really think a Toyota car will last just 100,000 miles?

For my trouble, I got the following snarky comment back:

OK, I'm in a dilemna. So I'll let the readers decide. Al Gore's cousin wrote a rather lengthy talking-points "refutation" of my post. Should I approve the comment and then mock him, or just deny it?

Now, I did not mention environmentalism at all or the low emissions of hybrids. So what's with the Al Gore comment? While I could have provided references for my comments, it usually isn't worth it in a comments section to do so. I was annoyed by what seemed to me to be a childish response and, to be honest, the 'refutation' comment. So I left a snarky message in reply:

Either method would be easier for you than truly debating the topic. But hey, it's your site.

I was hoping he would rise to the challenge and have a real conversation about hybrid cars. But instead, I was banned from making comments. Once again, he assumed I was an environmental nut.

Well, the only comment that I got back was a snarky one from Al’s cousin, who is under the mistaken impression that I wish to debate the religion of environmentalism.

And I thought blogs were great for creating conversations. I thought that was the whole point of blogs.

Well, if he had chosen to talk to me about it, I would have pointed out he was assuming I wanted to talk about environmental issues, while I hadn't talked about them at all. I would have preferred to talk about our addiction to oil. I would have, once again, talked about how you can save money in the long run by driving a hybrid car. I would have talked about how republicans should love hybrid cars.

But I wasn't given a chance to.