After reading my two links and the Cecil link I'm still confused.

OK, higher octane reduces or eliminates detonation. That makes sense. Detonation is when the fuel/air mixture spontaneously ignites (under the heat of compression) before the sparkplug fires. This is bad. But modern engine computers can detect detonation, and retard the spark to prevent detonation. Except retarding the spark means the spark happens later - i.e. the spark still happens after the detonation, so I don't see how that helps.

A lot of automotive experts are confused about this, or have contrary opinions, so I don't feel too bad about my confusion.

eta: And I think the Washington Post thing I linked to has several errors, so that doesn't help my confusion.

I guess I'll keep with the premium, then.

Gack! I just noticed I have a noon meeting. No leaving the site for lunch. In fact, I need to bolt to the caf to get anything.

I'm mystified, however, as to why your check engine light goes away when you add premium.

My Rules Girl the Car

I asked my dealer about it, who theoretically has no stake in what kind of gas I buy, and he told me that using regular unleaded wouldn't hurt the car, but it would run much better on premium.

I've gotten this answer a few times too. But it doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, if it doesn't hurt the car, then it does what it's supposed to do. And what does "run much better" mean, better mileage?

My Rules Girl the Car

Heh, I was going to say it was snobby engine gnomes.

I'm mystified, however, as to why your check engine light goes away when you add premium.

According to the manual, if the light comes on steady (not blinking), it's not an emergency issue and is more than likely something dealing with the emissions system or gas tank. It suggests first checking the gas cap to see that it's on tight (it is), and then filling the tank with a different type of gas (it doesn't specify premium, but that's what worked the last time the light came on, so I'm doing it again). I've got to get my emissions tested at the testing center this week anyway, so I'll find out if it's a problem on that end.

I was taught that in an academic essays you shouldn't ascribe thematic intent to the writer. Not even if you've got quotes from him saying, "I intended this." It's not that you're dismissing the idea that the writer had any intent, but if you discuss it that way, you've gone from talking about the work to doing a psychological profile. And it's just a short step to, "Tim is obviously into BDSM" and the like. You can find writers who say contradictory things about their own work. Their contemporary comments may not match what they say 20 years later, so then what do you do?

So it was drilled into me that if you want to talk about the text, talk about the text. Bringing the writer into it opens a very large can of worms. I blame postmodernism for making the text an excuse for theorizing about the author's political/sexual/sociological beliefs. But I blame postmodernism for most things.

I dropped a college honors English class half way through the semester because my prof told me I would have to show that the author meant what I got from the text. I told him that the author probably didn't mean what I got from the text, but backed the whole thing from the text. He had no argument with my argument. He thought it was good. But clearly I couldn't prove that Faulkner intended Emily to stand for the Catholic church in A Rose for Emily. I think he didn't like my premise, and was trying to figure out a way to make me not right it. So, I dropped the class, took the only class I could add that late in the semester (Sociology 101 by tv), and later took technical writing for my English credit. The whole thing still bugs me, but I loved the technical writing class, so all's well and all that.

Also, ita, I'm so glad your migraine is gone. There are altogether too many of us migrainistas. Migraines should just not be allowed.

Migraines should just not be allowed.

Once I'm in charge, I'm banning them outright.

Still going to crack the whip on too much perfume -- that's just a wrong thing, whether I'm in a migraine haze or no.

I dropped a college honors English class half way through the semester because my prof told me I would have to show that the author meant what I got from the text. I told him that the author probably didn't mean what I got from the text, but backed the whole thing from the text. He had no argument with my argument. He thought it was good. But clearly I couldn't prove that Faulkner intended Emily to stand for the Catholic church in A Rose for Emily. I think he didn't like my premise, and was trying to figure out a way to make me not right it.

I have no expertise in Faulkner, so no comment on your interpretation of Emily. But surely the professor has a prerogative to steer students from certain interpretations of a text-- that's kind of their job. I mean, you could do a Bible Code-like paper on Shakespeare, but a professor would be remiss in allowing a student to use numerology to show that he predicted Communism (to use a wacky example).

Oh, and I disagree that postmodernism in any way promulgated the author intentionality school of analysis.

a professor would be remiss in allowing a student to use numerology to show that he predicted Communism (to use a wacky example)

Even if the student can back up their wacky argument?

I disagree that postmodernism in any way promulgated the author intentionality school of analysis.

Postmodernism is like a secret code word that makes my brain explode, unable to parse either the sentence or the paragraph in which it appears.

Look! I can't even work out what I meant in that sentence! It's like kryptonite.