Response to my feedback on my paper

Ok, other than the response I got from Mark on Hypermilers, I only had one other review of my paper, and I'm not yet convinced that the person who left the review fully comprehended what I was writing about. Perhaps that's my fault. Perhaps they aren't quite up to snuff on their reading comprehension skills.

Here was the review I got, and I'm about pick the hell out of it. Call it egotistical and that I can't take criticism, or call it I can't stand when people don't use their god given brains to look beyond the cover of a book, or the title of a paper.


1. What is this paper really about?
This paper is about new technologies for higher-mileage cars and that the U.S. automakers aren't using enough of them. I thought from the title that it was going to be about why gas prices are so high.
Maybe you need to be able to look beyond the title of a paper. It's not my fault that you thought the paper was going to be on why gas prices were so high. I may be sick and tired of paying a high price at the pump, but my paper was clearly on miles per gallon and not the price of fuel. I stated in there that people were tired of paying high prices, but the fact that people wanted more bang for their buck was brought up more and a handful of times, in those words exactly.



1. What is this paper really about?
This paper is about new technologies for higher-mileage cars and that the U.S. automakers aren't using enough of them. I thought from the title that it was going to be about why gas prices are so high. Right on the money with the firest sentence. Again, not about why prices were so high. Can you really assume that the book Of Mice and Men was going to be about 2 dudes and a mouse? Sometimes you have to look beyond the title.

2. What confused you?
The part about George Washington seemed really out of character for the paper, and I don't think it contributes to the paper as it confused me. Also, the introduction was kind of confusing, and at first I thought CAFE was regulating gas prices, because at first you seemed to be writing your paper on gas prices. Holy shit@#@#^@#$!&(%^ Why the F?! Did you think CAFE was regulating gas prices? I didn't state in there ANYWHERE that CAFE regulated gas prices at the pump or otherwise. Stated numerous times that CAFE is in charge of MPG, Miles per gallon, Fuel Economy and that number that comes out of the calculator when you're at the pump... that number would be how many miles you went divided by how many gallons of fuel you bought. The price is not mentioned in there. Anywhere. And about the George Washington comment. I knew this would confuse some people, only for the fact that everyone that reads papers nowadays can't add any attitude to it, and comedic relief, or even put any sort of personality in there. I however gave you the reader the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you'd be ok to infer that perhaps I was going off a bit on America and the way we think and act. We need success to get somewhere. And none of us would even be here were it not for the success that GW saw that night so long ago. Go to History 1700 again. Thanks.

3. What was the most interesting part of the paper?
I found it interesting that there are all these technologies for improving fuel economy but that carmakers aren't using them. Finally.. Breathe... Breathe...

4. What important questions remain unasked?
WHY aren't U.S. automakers using the new technologies? Thank you, I'm starting to think that maybe you did infact read and comprehend this paper.

5. What conclusions, if any, does the author reach?
I think that the conclusion is that car companies should use more technologies and make an effort to increase the fuel economy of their cars, especially because gasoline is so expensive. But there's not a real conclusion on the paper yet.

Junk draft, no conclusion yet. You didn't notice the lack of citations though. Strange.