It's actually "font of knowledge and wisdom".
Balding_Eagle wrote in post #51:
You need to get a better source of information. The entire paragraph is false. So are most of the rest of the 'facts', including that constantly trumpeted "30% of corn for ethanol" which is an outright lie.
This argument is a classic example of what I call an "Internet rebuttal".
To wit: "No, it's not. It's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said.", followed by some inane ramblings which attempt to re-justify the original opinion which was questioned.
The Internet rebuttal is used to dismiss clear facts which are causing cognitive dissonance in the denier, who attempts to attack the messenger.
Clear fact #1: In the fall of 2013, US farmers used much of the propane that was destined to go into winter storage for domestic home heating needs.
Clear fact #2: The propane was used to dry large amounts of green, immature & wet corn, generated by late plantings.
Clear fact #3: The EPA's insistence on polluting the US gasoline supply with ethanol is a major driver of this economic abortion.
Balding_Eagle's "Internet rebuttal" was generated by his cognitive bias toward ethanol.
Sorry, Balding - burning propane energy to produce ethanol energy is a net loss in any thermodynamic equation.
Thanks for playing!
It's 'fount'. Perhaps you could sight your source for using font, which is normally used to designate type size. My site is Merriam-Webster. Readers could chose which site was more credible and affective.
As to the paragraph in question, a review of the actual data shows the first sentence to be false. As to the second sentence, while there may be an acre or two that was planted to corn where corn had never been grown before, it would be true only on a technicality, but not even close to true in the practical sense. The third sentence? Corn was planted where it normally was.
burning propane energy to produce ethanol energy is a net loss in any thermodynamic equation.
See post 37.