CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Everything You Know is Wrong!
So...as the residence science geek and Iconoclast, as a community service i am going to provide the following. I will do a series. Maybe one issue every couple days or so.
What I will do is post a recently-discovered factoid by science. One that, although true--and I will provide proof and sources--flies in the face of conventional beliefs.
That is: Refutes what you think you know.
I will first post my Fact. Then give some time for responses and comments. Then I will answer any questions. Or any contrary claims.
FIRST FACT.....
The alleged oil shortage is a Myth. Also...Oil IS NOT a Fossil Fuel! It is NOT caused by the decomposition of organic matter, like former plants and animals. Including dinosaurs.
Rather, it is a very abundant source created by geothermal activity several miles beneath the Earth''s surface. The oil companies have been hiding this fact for years now. Oh, at first they believed it was a Fossil Fuel, but about 10 years ago they discovered the truth.
Do you have any actual evidence for the abiogentic petroleum origin hypothoses? Last time I checked, they had been debunked and no recent evidence had come out.
Obviously there is naught or else it'd be posted. A single wikipedia link, as if that can be counted as reliable.
Why do I almost feel (hope would be a better word) that the purpose of this series of debates is simply an experiment into the credulity of the people of this site?
I don't really know when it comes to SlapShot. He swings radically between rational conversations, to belligerent racism or "homophobia" (I put that in quotes because I mean the colloquial definition, not the etymological one), to randomly insult everyone here.
IT DOES NOT HAVE 'BIOTIC' ORIGINS. YOU HAVE BEEN DUPED!!
To understand the reason for this, we return momentarily to the early days of the Cold War when an isolated Soviet Union tasked their top scientists to identify the actual source of oil. Not a weekend homework assignment. After considerable research, in 1956, Russian scientist Professor Vladimir Porfir’yev announced that “crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial [originating with the earth’s formation] materials which have been erupted from great depths.”
If your eyeballs didn’t fall out when you read that, you might want to read it again.
He said oil doesn’t come from anything biologic, not, as conventional wisdom dictates, from the fossilized remains of dinosaurs and/or ancient plant matter. It comes from very deep in the earth and is created by a biochemical reaction that subjected hydrocarbons (elements having carbon and hydrogen) to extreme heat and intense pressure during the earth’s formation.
Russians referred to this oil (any oil, really) as “abiotic oil” because it is not created from the decomposition of biological life forms, but rather from the chemical process continually occurring inside the earth.
I know, easy for Porfir’yev to say. But it turns out it was more than just a theory.
Because shortly after the Russians discovered this, they started drilling ultra-deep wells and finding oil at 30,000 and 40,000 feet below the earth’s surface. These are staggering depths, and far below the depth at which organic matter can be found, which is 18,000 feet.
Interesting, eh?
The Russians applied their theory of abiotic deep-drilling technology to the Dnieper-Donets Basin, an area understood for the previous half a century to be barren of oil. Of sixty wells drilled there using abiotic technology, thirty-seven became commercially productive—a 62 percent success rate compared with the roughly 10 percent success rate of a U.S. wildcat driller. The oil found in the basin rivaled Alaska’s North Slope.
Let’s say they had a good hair day.
But it doesn’t stop there, not by a long shot. Since their earlier discoveries, the major Russian oil companies have quietly drilled more than 310 ultra-deep wells and put them into production.
Result? Russia recently overtook Saudi Arabia as the planet’s largest oil producer.
Maybe they are onto something.
Though there were papers written on this early on, almost all were in Russian and few made it to the West. And those that did were laughed at.
No more. With Russia’s rejection of the Exxon-Yukos deal (Putin did not want this technology and their abiotic oil experts exported to the West) and the access to information now available on the Internet, the word has begun to spread rapidly to the West. Still, it hasn’t taken hold yet.
Why not? This is huge. Oil is not a fossil fuel! And it’s renewable! Wow!
There are a couple of factors at play here.
Big oil has a vested interest in pushing the idea that oil is scarce, hard to find, and thus costly to produce—all of which, of course, means increased revenues and profits. This is a story in itself, but not the primary focus here.
More relevant to our story is the fact that a cornerstone of the environmental movement is this: oil is a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel that is scarce, and is in limited and ever decreasing supply. Moreover, its production creates carbon dioxide. Therefore its use, for virtually all productive purposes—agricultural production, real estate construction, auto, truck, train and air transportation, utilities, heating, cooling, communication, ad infinitum (all of them)—must be curtailed.
According to the thirty-year update of the book The Limits to Growth,
“A prime example of a nonrenewable resource is fossil fuels, whose limits should be obvious, although many people, including distinguished economists, are in denial over the elementary fact. More than 80 percent of year 2000 commercial energy use comes from nonrenewable fossil fuels—oil, natural gas, and coal. The underground stocks of fossil fuels are going continuously and inexorably down. . . .
“Peak gas production will certainly occur in the next 50 years, the peak for oil production will occur much sooner, probably within the decade.”
Scary stuff. Frightening. But as false as a hooker’s smile.
Oil is not a fossil fuel.
And it is “renewable.”
While I have never been a fan of Putin the Macho, the Russians have demonstrcted the accuracy of their theory in the only place it counts—the oil field. Oil is not only abiotic, it continues to populate fields that were understood to be as dry of petroleum as a desert wind. In fact, some scientists believe it is the centrifugal force of the planet’s rotation that forces abiotic oil toward the planet’s surface on a continuous basis.
“There are some things the general public does not need to know, and shouldn’t. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows.” —the late Katherine Graham, owner of the Washington Post
So Con #2 is that oil is a fossil fuel (which it isn’t), that it is scarce and being depleted (which it isn’t), that it is nonrenewable (which it isn’t), and that, as a result, catastrophe looms (which it doesn’t) unless we drastically curtail our use of petroleum.
Thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea it was not organic; that it originated in the bowels of the earth on a continuous basis. I learn something new everyday.
Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements, where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future. Russian creationists also favour it.
What I will do is post a recently-discovered factoid by science. One that, although true--and I will provide proof and sources--flies in the face of conventional beliefs.
So, where's all the proof and sources?
Looking through each of your posts, I see nothing.
That is: Refutes what you think you know.
Pretty shoddy job at it.
I will first post my Fact. Then give some time for responses and comments. Then I will answer any questions. Or any contrary claims.
What makes you such an expert? Rather, what makes your alleged expert superior to that of scientific consensus?
FIRST FACT.....
The alleged oil shortage is a Myth. Also...Oil IS NOT a Fossil Fuel! It is NOT caused by the decomposition of organic matter, like former plants and animals. Including dinosaurs.
Rather, it is a very abundant source created by geothermal activity several miles beneath the Earth''s surface. The oil companies have been hiding this fact for years now. Oh, at first they believed it was a Fossil Fuel, but about 10 years ago they discovered the truth.
[this notion] occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements
You can talk out of your ass all you want, nobody's buying it unless they want it to be true. Unfortunately, that is the problem with today's internet civilization: people are mostly exposed to what they want to be exposed to, so they only learn what they want to learn and they only interact with like-minded people who do little other than feed their ignorance.
I read a paper in a medical journal maybe a year and a half ago bemoaning the state of American medical education where a survey indicated that a large percentage of med students get their information directly from wikipedia.
America is dying and it is the laziness and imbecility of Americans that is the knife stabbing America in the back time and time again.
It "matters" because the energy industry and the textbooks and everybody, including you, has been mislead and mis-informed forever.
The term "fossil fuel"' implies a limited resource. A commodity. The term justifies exorbitant prices. Manipulation. Control.
It is like claiming that only bottled water is safe to drink and so you have to pay more for it, and you cannot use the abundance of tap water we have available.
The word "fossil" does not belong in fossil fuel. It is like calling oxygen "pterodactyl breath."
What the fuck do you even ask me why it matters if it erroneously called "fossil fuel?"
I guess you dont mind being lied to or controlled like a sheep?
The terminology involved has nothing to do with it being considered a rare commodity. As long as they claim that is limited it doesn't matter what they call it. Getting people to call it something else won't do anything to change the idea that it is a rare commodity.
Educating people as to what Oil's REAL origins ARE will change the world. Take the power out of the hands of the oil companies.
Who the fuck is going to dig up the oil? The oil companies are still in control either way. And teaching people the real origins has nothing to do with what we call the stuff.
Knowledge is power.
Not all knowledge is power.
Which is why you appear content to be weak.
I want you to explain the real origin of oil while all you want to do is make sure it is called the proper name.
Who the fuck is going to dig up the oil? The oil companies are still in control either way. And teaching people the real origins has nothing to do with what we call the stuff.
But whether the oil companies are in control of whether they dig up oil or not it won't change the fact that oil would otherwise not be seen as a rare commodity.
Not all knowledge is power.
Are you demonstrating that all knowledge is insightful or that all knowledge is not insightful?
I want you to explain the real origin of oil while all you want to do is make sure it is called the proper name.
Would water become a rare commodity if it wasn't renewable?
Well, water is not a rare commodity and it is renewable.
But whether the oil companies are in control of whether they dig up oil or not it won't change the fact that oil would otherwise not be seen as a rare commodity.
If oil companies don't dig up the oil it becomes a rare commodity. It is only a commodity once it is dug up and sold.
Are you demonstrating that all knowledge is insightful or that all knowledge is not insightful?
Neither. I am saying that some knowledge is not insightful.
Would water become a rare commodity if it wasn't renewable?
That's not the only way. If it was renewable and we couldn't get it to people it is still rare.
Well, water is not a rare commodity and it is renewable.
Well, unfortunately, all that matters is if they say it is. Since they are the only ones who are able to get the stuff they get to determine how rare it is. In the end, if you can't get it for whatever reason it is rare.
You're lecturing everybody on it now.
I am pointing out the situation isn't black and white. I fully acknowledged all of the information that has been presented. You clearly missed that.
Except we are able to carter up water.
Except in some places.
Can businesses carter up oil for us?
They can, but they are greedy.
You just missed basic algrebra class.
You are always way past basic algebra class fixing your arguments. Nowhere in basic algebra does it explain that if most of the world has something that you can't have some places that don't have it.
They would feel angry at a business not providing something that for the business is not a rare commodity.
Oh, so now all of a sudden it makes sense for them to feel angry and 1 post ago they weren't supposed to feel anything since most of the world has water. Make up your mind.
So you are implying that I wasn't arguing with you?
Yes. We weren't arguing with each other before we started talking to each other.
Well, unfortunately, all that matters is if they say it is. Since they are the only ones who are able to get the stuff they get to determine how rare it is. In the end, if you can't get it for whatever reason it is rare.
So we have no control over oil companies?
Do you believe oil companies are above governmental control?
I am pointing out the situation isn't black and white. I fully acknowledged all of the information that has been presented. You clearly missed that.
You have done a very good job in allowing me to present everything as not being black and white.
Except in some places.
We have control of most places.
They can, but they are greedy.
If they are greedy I think they would definitely want to carter up oil for us.
You are always way past basic algebra class fixing your arguments. Nowhere in basic algebra does it explain that if most of the world has something that you can't have some places that don't have it.
The most common denominator is about basic algebra.
Oh, so now all of a sudden it makes sense for them to feel angry and 1 post ago they weren't supposed to feel anything since most of the world has water. Make up your mind.
How somebody feels has nothing to do with what we control.
Wake up your mind.
Yes. We weren't arguing with each other before we started talking to each other.
So I apparently had agreed with you?
According to you it only takes 1.
So, is oil a rare commodity?
So one person can agree and the other can disagree with the other?
Do you believe oil companies are above governmental control?
No, but we don't have anything in place right now.
You have done a very good job in allowing me to present everything as not being black and white.
Great.
We have control of most places.
Most places is not equal to all places.
If they are greedy I think they would definitely want to carter up oil for us.
If they can make the same amount of money to sell us less oil, why would they?
The most common denominator is about basic algebra.
Sorry, but a common denominator does not get people dying of thirst the water they need.
How somebody feels has nothing to do with what we control.
Wake up your mind.
Why should they have negative feelings if we control enough water?
So I apparently had agreed with you?
Arguing is not the opposite of agree. We were not interacting with each other. We couldn't agree, disagree, argue, etc. since we hadn't been interacting.
So one person can agree and the other can disagree with the other?
We weren't talking to each other. I was by myself. If it takes 2 to argue, how come you are saying that I was arguing with you when I was by myself?
So there is right now what's best is just to hang on and do nothing about it?
No, but we don't have anything in place right now.
So it's impossible to have any influence on the government?
Great.
You're black and white, I'm grey.
Most places is not equal to all places.
So we don't have control over most places?
If they can make the same amount of money to sell us less oil, why would they?
What would earn more money?
Producing rare oil in the millions, or producing rare oil in just a few thousands?
Sorry, but a common denominator does not get people dying of thirst the water they need.
The common denominator never said we had control over that.
Why should they have negative feelings if we control enough water?
The common denominator doesn't include us having control over water, nor does it mean they wouldn't cry.
Arguing is not the opposite of agree. We were not interacting with each other. We couldn't agree, disagree, argue, etc. since we hadn't been interacting.
So we described things in the exact same way?
We weren't talking to each other. I was by myself. If it takes 2 to argue, how come you are saying that I was arguing with you when I was by myself?
So you have been by yourself all along?
You do know of a time frame and how a time frame influences context, right?
So there is right now what's best is just to hang on and do nothing about it?
No, we should change things.
So it's impossible to have any influence on the government?
Of course we can influence government.
You're black and white, I'm grey.
You're dumb.
Producing rare oil in the millions, or producing rare oil in just a few thousands?
If they are producing it in the millions they are admitting it isn't rare. It is between common oil in the millions, or rare oil in the thousands. Apparently, rare oil in the thousands is the winner.
The common denominator never said we had control over that.
I never said anything about having control over it.
The common denominator doesn't include us having control over water, nor does it mean they wouldn't cry.
So, you have no real objection to what I was saying. Cool.
So we described things in the exact same way?
What aren't you getting about me being by myself? WE can't do anything together if I am by myself. Before you joined in the discussion there was no WE.
So you have been by yourself all along?
I was by myself until you started talking to me.
You do know of a time frame and how a time frame influences context, right?
I do. That's why I am explaining to you the correct time frame. You think we argued before we talked to each other.
If we treat it as such, it will become one.
I believe I have been saying that this whole time. What kind of treatment are you referring to? Are you talking about not developing the technology to get the commodity?
So are you saying that we can't change the government, or that influencing something isn't changing it?
You're dumb.
No, can't deduct things.
If they are producing it in the millions they are admitting it isn't rare. It is between common oil in the millions, or rare oil in the thousands. Apparently, rare oil in the thousands is the winner.
So you are saying that people are less eager to look for gold because it is rare?
I never said anything about having control over it.
Yeah, you're definitely saying that controlling something is apparently not influencing something.
So, you have no real objection to what I was saying. Cool.
Does this imply that water isn't rare according to the most common denominator?
What aren't you getting about me being by myself? WE can't do anything together if I am by myself. Before you joined in the discussion there was no WE.
If I start something, that means we are no longer doing it?
I was by myself until you started talking to me.
So you are saying that you don't somehow know my opinion?
I do. That's why I am explaining to you the correct time frame. You think we argued before we talked to each other.
So you are saying that I knew your opinion before we talked to each other?
I believe I have been saying that this whole time. What kind of treatment are you referring to? Are you talking about not developing the technology to get the commodity?
So you are saying that we can't influence the government to develop the technology?
So are you saying that we can't change the government, or that influencing something isn't changing it?
I never said anything to indicate that the government can't change. I only ever talked about what is currently going on. We can change the government, and we can influence the government.
No, can't deduct things.
Fine, you aren't dumb, you just completely lack all deduction skills.
So you are saying that people are less eager to look for gold because it is rare?
Yes, people are less eager to look for gold when it is rare. During the California gold rush, the gold wasn't rare and tons of people traveled to California to dig up gold. Now that the gold is rare you don't hear about people doing that. What exactly were you trying to point out here? Switching to talking about gold completely loses the point of the conversation.
Yeah, you're definitely saying that controlling something is apparently not influencing something.
I didn't say anything like that.
Does this imply that water isn't rare according to the most common denominator?
No. You having no objection does not imply that water isn't rare.
If I start something, that means we are no longer doing it?
No, if you start something it means we only did it AFTER you started it. You are claiming we did something BEFORE you started doing it.
So you are saying that you don't somehow know my opinion?
A) That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that your opinion was not relevant before you showed up. B) No one, including you, knows your opinion.
So you are saying that I knew your opinion before we talked to each other?
You knew my opinion before you talked to me because I left an argument that you responded to. I didn't know your opinion BEFORE you responded to me.
So you are saying that we can't influence the government to develop the technology?
You don't think we can influence the government to develop technology? What kind of treatment are you referring to when you talk about treating a commodity as rare? Are you talking about not developing the technology to get the commodity?
You said that it isn't possible to change the oiling industry.
Do you believe this also means that it is impossible to change the government's stance on the matter?
I want a yes or a no, at the double.
I never said anything to indicate that the government can't change. I only ever talked about what is currently going on. We can change the government, and we can influence the government.
Oh, so now what you are saying is that just because we change the government, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can change the oiling industry.
Fine, you aren't dumb, you just completely lack all deduction skills.
That's a fallacy.
No, can't deduce things.
I think the context shows that I was talking about you.
Yes, people are less eager to look for gold when it is rare. During the California gold rush, the gold wasn't rare and tons of people traveled to California to dig up gold. Now that the gold is rare you don't hear about people doing that. What exactly were you trying to point out here? Switching to talking about gold completely loses the point of the conversation.
Gold is definitely a highly sought item.
Where do you think the high standards of gold edition comes from?
You saying that people don't aim for high standards, so higher standards are rare?
I didn't say anything like that.
I just wished you would actually be more obvious about you're stance.
You make some statements that could mean absolutely everything.
You say that I can't disprove what you say, but how can I if I don't even know what you are trying to say.
Next time please write longer paragraphs in more detail, as I clearly don't understand.
No. You having no objection does not imply that water isn't rare.
So what you are saying that the average reflects the state of an individual nation?
So if the average GDA is high, that means Somalia is apparently a rich country, right?
Or are you saying that we can change the industries of other countries but not our own?
No, if you start something it means we only did it AFTER you started it. You are claiming we did something BEFORE you started doing it.
I said that you had shown that you had disagreed with me as soon as you replied to me.
Are you implying that you don't know my opinion?
A) That's not what I was saying. What I was saying is that your opinion was not relevant before you showed up. B) No one, including you, knows your opinion.
I never mentioned events that happened before I had responded to you and had shown up.
Are you thick?
You knew my opinion before you talked to me because I left an argument that you responded to. I didn't know your opinion BEFORE you responded to me.
I had ASKED you questions, then you began to know my stance, then I began to know yours.
Then you argued with me.
So I knew that you disagreed because you had argued with me.
Is it obvious now?
By the time I had said that you had argued with me, we already knew each other's stance.
Hint: I didn't suggest that you were arguing with me before the conversation began, that's impossible.
I accused you of arguing with me within several responses to each other.
Get that head fixed.
You don't think we can influence the government to develop technology? What kind of treatment are you referring to when you talk about treating a commodity as rare? Are you talking about not developing the technology to get the commodity?
So what you are saying is that can influence the government to develop the technology that makes it easier to dig up rare oil, but oil companies won't use that technology?
You said that it isn't possible to change the oiling industry.
You misread what I wrote. You asked a negative question and I answered no. I say it is possible to change the oiling industry.
Do you believe this also means that it is impossible to change the government's stance on the matter?
You want me to interpret a belief that I don't have to see if it also applies to the government? I think it is possible to change the government, as well as the oiling industry.
I want a yes or a no, at the double.
Too bad for you pal. You never give a yes or a no.
Oh, so now what you are saying
It is not something new. I have not changed. There is no "now" about it.
that just because we change the government, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can change the oiling industry.
You should really stop combining thoughts until you understand the first thought. We can change the government which can change the oiling industry.
I think the context shows that I was talking about you.
I wanted you to be talking about the actual person who can't deduce things, though.
Gold is definitely a highly sought item.
I hope you have a point here. My guess is no.
Where do you think the high standards of gold edition comes from?
The fact that it is rare.
You saying that people don't aim for high standards, so higher standards are rare?
I wasn't saying that at all, but that is true.
I just wished you would actually be more obvious about you're stance.
It doesn't get any more obvious. Instead of trying to interpret what I say try reading it.
You make some statements that could mean absolutely everything.
That is 100% false. This describes you. Stop doing that.
You say that I can't disprove what you say, but how can I if I don't even know what you are trying to say.
If you are too dumb to understand what I am saying, it follows that you are probably too dumb to disprove it as well.
Next time please write longer paragraphs in more detail, as I clearly don't understand.
You ignore all the details.
So what you are saying that the average reflects the state of an individual nation?
No, that's what you are saying.
I said that you had shown that you had disagreed with me as soon as you replied to me.
Nope. You have things out of order. Go back and look.
I never mentioned events that happened before I had responded to you and had shown up.
Your first response you had already determined I was arguing with you.
I had ASKED you questions, then you began to know my stance, then I began to know yours.
I do not know your stance because all you ever do is ask questions. You accused me of disagreeing with you before you started asking me questions to understand my stance.
Then you argued with me.
Finally. We are in agreement. I didn't start arguing with you until after you started asking me questions even though your first response indicated otherwise.
So I knew that you disagreed because you had argued with me.
Is it obvious now?
It is obvious that you don't have any idea what you said.
By the time I had said that you had argued with me, we already knew each other's stance.
False. You claimed there was an argument in your very first post. And, no one knows your stance.
Hint: I didn't suggest that you were arguing with me before the conversation began, that's impossible.
Hint: you did do it, that's why I am chastising you for claiming to have done the impossible.
I accused you of arguing with me within several responses to each other.
Get that head fixed.
False. Go back and read.
So what you are saying is that can influence the government to develop the technology that makes it easier to dig up rare oil, but oil companies won't use that technology?
I didn't actually say anything. I asked you questions because I don't know what your stance is.
You don't think we can influence the government to develop technology? What kind of treatment are you referring to when you talk about treating a commodity as rare? Are you talking about not developing the technology to get the commodity?
You misread what I wrote. You asked a negative question and I answered no. I say it is possible to change the oiling industry.
What did my question imply that I had disagreed with?
You are claiming that you didn't know my stance.
You said "no" not the premise of the question, you said "no" to it's content.
Liar.
You want me to interpret a belief that I don't have to see if it also applies to the government? I think it is possible to change the government, as well as the oiling industry.
How can I know you're stance if you're now claiming not to have one?
Why do you contradict yourself?
Too bad for you pal. You never give a yes or a no.
That's you lying, again.
I've just proved that you don't like being asked questions.
It is not something new. I have not changed. There is no "now" about it.
You haven't changed.
Just what you claim to support.
You should really stop combining thoughts until you understand the first thought. We can change the government which can change the oiling industry.
But you said that you couldn't change the oiling industry.
I wanted you to be talking about the actual person who can't deduce things, though.
You're so stupid.
I hope you have a point here. My guess is no.
When it really counts, you don't actually provide a yes or a no.
You only provide a yes or a no when it comes to statements that address you're word picking.
Word picking is all you care about, here.
The fact that it is rare.
So you are saying that gold is not often sold?
I wasn't saying that at all, but that is true.
High standards are subject.
If something is deemed as a high standard by the population, it is going to be sought after.
Are you saying that the general population does not favour oil at all, and it is of high necessity or standard?
It doesn't get any more obvious. Instead of trying to interpret what I say try reading it.
No, you just conjure more word picking.
That is 100% false. This describes you. Stop doing that.
Is this it?
If you are too dumb to understand what I am saying, it follows that you are probably too dumb to disprove it as well.
You think people are too dumb to understand what you say.
No, they're either so dumb that it makes sense to them, or their too smart that they can't make head nor tail of it.
You ignore all the details.
Void statement.
Nope. You have things out of order. Go back and look.
I have.
If you want to prove it just quote.
You don't have to quote it if you don't want to, you can quit if you want.
Because I'm not taking such bullshit.
Your first response you had already determined I was arguing with you.
Any quotes?
I do not know your stance because all you ever do is ask questions. You accused me of disagreeing with you before you started asking me questions to understand my stance.
You implied that my questions were negative statements.
This implied that you knew what my stance was by the time I had accused you.
If I only ask you questions, how come many of my past comments to you don't necessarily come with a question mark?
Finally. We are in agreement. I didn't start arguing with you until after you started asking me questions even though your first response indicated otherwise.
So asking you questions now implies that you Don't know my stance?
It is obvious that you don't have any idea what you said.
That's thick.
False. You claimed there was an argument in your very first post. And, no one knows your stance.
My question covered a premise that you had laid out previously.
This isn't the first time we had conversations.
I have spoken to you for over 50 days now.
Hint: you did do it, that's why I am chastising you for claiming to have done the impossible.
You're chastising me for something I haven't done?
I didn't actually say anything. I asked you questions because I don't know what your stance is.
So you're questions aren't negative and they don't imply anything, but my questions are negative?
You asked me questions in order to know why I believed what I believed, you didn't ask questions in order to figure out what I simply believe.
You don't think we can influence the government to develop technology? What kind of treatment are you referring to when you talk about treating a commodity as rare? Are you talking about not developing the technology to get the commodity?
Of course we can influence the government to get technology.
When I said we develop the technology, that was based on the premise that oil was difficult to get.
Oil may be scarce across the ground, like gold, that doesn't mean it's not easily dig up.
What did my question imply that I had disagreed with?
I did not make any reference to anything you said.
You are claiming that you didn't know my stance.
It's true, I don't know your stance. You are all over the place.
You said "no" not the premise of the question, you said "no" to it's content.
Ok, so you don't even know how questions work.
Liar.
Instead of calling me a liar, why not just accept the last statement as it was incredibly clear.
How can I know you're stance if you're now claiming not to have one?
I am claiming not to have the one that is the opposite of my stance, not that I don't have any stance.
Why do you contradict yourself?
No contradiction. You can't read.
That's you lying, again.
Should be easy to prove me wrong. Go ahead. We are waiting.
I've just proved that you don't like being asked questions.
You can't prove that from me saying you never give a yes or no answer. All you have figured out is that I don't like questions that assume my position before finding out what it is.
You haven't changed.
Just what you claim to support.
Yes. Your question implied that I had changed.
But you said that you couldn't change the oiling industry.
No, I did not. We can change the oil industry.
When it really counts, you don't actually provide a yes or a no.
You weren't asking a question. And, most of your questions weren't yes or no questions.
You only provide a yes or a no when it comes to statements that address you're word picking.
Word picking is all you care about, here.
Everything you say is twisting what I have said.
So you are saying that gold is not often sold?
No. I am not saying that. It is not sold as often as milk. It is rare, not non existent.
Are you saying that the general population does not favour oil at all, and it is of high necessity or standard?
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that something is rare based on how much is available, not on how much peopple want it.
No, you just conjure more word picking.
Telling you to just read what I wrote is not word picking.
You think people are too dumb to understand what you say.
No, that was me directly addressing you. You are too dumb to understand what I say. This interpretation of yours proves me right.
I have.
No, you didn't. Stop lying.
You implied that my questions were negative statements.
I didn't mean to. I haven't assumed they were negative statements. I figured they were just to find out my stance. I apologize for somehow implying they were negative statements.
This implied that you knew what my stance was by the time I had accused you.
That's impossible. You treated me as if I was arguing with you in your very first post. I couldn't have possibly implied I knew your stance before you started asking questions.
If I only ask you questions, how come many of my past comments to you don't necessarily come with a question mark?
You caught me. You do more than just ask questions. You ask questions, tell lies, say stupid off topic statements, and incorrectly interpret simple statements from other users.
So asking you questions now implies that you Don't know my stance?
Again, I didn't say anything like that.
My question covered a premise that you had laid out previously.
This isn't the first time we had conversations.
I have spoken to you for over 50 days now.
We haven't discussed the oil companies in any other debate.
You're chastising me for something I haven't done?
You did something and your excuse is an impossible scenario. I am chastising you for claiming that your reasons were because of something impossible.
So you're questions aren't negative and they don't imply anything, but my questions are negative?
You had 1 negative question. You asked if I don't believe something. If I answer "no", that means I do believe whatever you asked. You interpreted the "no" answer as me not believing what you asked. That happened 1 time, and it wasn't judgmental at all.
You asked me questions in order to know why I believed what I believed, you didn't ask questions in order to figure out what I simply believe.
No. I have no idea what your stance is, so I am still trying to figure out what you simply believe. I am nowhere near trying to find out why you believe anything.
Of course we can influence the government to get technology.
I agree. I am not sure why I had to ask so many times to find out.
When I said we develop the technology, that was based on the premise that oil was difficult to get.
That makes sense. Do you believe that we are less likely to develop the technology if we continue to think the oil is difficult to get?
I did not make any reference to anything you said.
So you're stance is now down?
It's true, I don't know your stance. You are all over the place.
Therefore you don't have a stance, either, according to you.
Shame on you, you do have a stance.
Ok, so you don't even know questions work.
Dumb.
Instead of calling me a liar, why not just accept the last statement as it was incredibly clear.
That statement was clear in what it meant.
You're stance in general still isn't clear, though.
I am claiming not to have the one that is the opposite of my stance, not that I don't have any stance
But you just said that you didn't have a stance.
No contradiction. You can't read.
You're dumb.
Should be easy to prove me wrong. Go ahead. We are waiting.
My questions imply that I had a particular stance.
If I had asked different questions, my stance would have been different.
Which implies that I do have a stance.
You can't prove that from me saying you never give a yes or no answer. All you have figured out is that I don't like questions that assume my position before finding out what it is.
Since I asked questions that assumed you're position, this means that you knew my stance.
I believed your stance was wrong and my choice of questions shown that I had disagreed with you.
Yes. Your question implied that I had changed
The question was based on whether the premise was true.
However, I made statements and other questions that proved that premise to be false.
No, I did not. We can change the oil industry.
You said that we couldn't change the oiling industry.
You weren't asking a question. And, most of your questions weren't yes or no questions.
Yes, they were.
I asked several yes or no questions.
Everything you say is twisting what I have said.
No, when I ask you questions you contradict yourself.
No. I am not saying that. It is not sold as often as milk. It is rare, not non existent.
Coal is not sold as often as milk, yet coal isn't rare.
Milk isn't sold as often as many other things, yet milk isn't rare.
No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that something is rare based on how much is available, not on how much peopple want it.
So companies don't produce much of what other people earnestly seek after?
Telling you to just read what I wrote is not word picking.
You're ignoring the whole post.
No, that was me directly addressing you. You are too dumb to understand what I say. This interpretation of yours proves me right.
You're whole argument is that I'm dumb, I assume your stance, I don't have a stance, that you weren't going out of your way to argue, that you're trying to help, etc...
You don't provide reasons for those arguments.
No, you didn't. Stop lying.
So if you hide the truth, I'm therefore lying?
I didn't mean to. I haven't assumed they were negative statements. I figured they were just to find out my stance. I apologize for somehow implying they were negative statements.
If I say the same thing as you, you just have another definition for it, or another explanation.
You like to spin things round.
That's impossible. You treated me as if I was arguing with you in your very first post. I couldn't have possibly implied I knew your stance before you started asking questions.
My questions implied that what you believed was different to me, doesn't mean right at the start that I believed you were arguing with me.
I accused you of arguing with me only within a few posts of me realising that you had a different opinion to me.
You caught me. You do more than just ask questions. You ask questions, tell lies, say stupid off topic statements, and incorrectly interpret simple statements from other users.
So by lying and making off topic comments I am assuming what your stance is?
Again, I didn't say anything like that.
Do you believe it, though?
You don't provide adequate explanations.
We haven't discussed the oil companies in any other debate.
No, but there are a lot of things that have been discussed on this debate and a lot of things that we had already discussed with.
You did something and your excuse is an impossible scenario. I am chastising you for claiming that your reasons were because of something impossible.
So you're chastising me for reasons that I didn't have?
You had 1 negative question. You asked if I don't believe something. If I answer "no", that means I do believe whatever you asked. You interpreted the "no" answer as me not believing what you asked. That happened 1 time, and it wasn't judgmental at all.
That isn't what you had just said before.
So I ALWAYS disagree with my questions?
No. I have no idea what your stance is, so I am still trying to figure out what you simply believe. I am nowhere near trying to find out why you believe anything.
But you said that I had disagreed with my questions, so you must have believed to have known what my stance was.
I agree. I am not sure why I had to ask so many times to find out.
I thought I did.
Perhaps I'm sick of having to be ridiculously direct.
That makes sense. Do you believe that we are less likely to develop the technology if we continue to think the oil is difficult to get?
Well, yes.
I think that's likely.
But I believe that we do have the technology already to dig up the oil.
You misinterpreted every one of my sentences. It's amazing really. I say that I did something and you interpret it as me saying I did the opposite. Quite amazing.
I love that you admit that you hate being direct. Thanks for that.
I responded to every sentence of yours that wasn't either complete bullshit or a horrible interpretation of clear direct statements. It should be your goal to debate, not get the other person to quit because you are a stupid wall.
I responded to every sentence of yours that wasn't either complete bullshit or a horrible interpretation of clear direct statements. It should be your goal to debate, not get the other person to quit because you are a stupid wall.
You are a fucking moron.
I shall rephrase what you had said.
You had not given an answer to every one of my none bullshit statements.
What I think you had meant was that you had given answers to statements that you thought weren't bullshit.
But even then, you don't think that I have made any none bullshit statements, so by your own admission, you are suggesting that you haven't responded to me at all.
I responded to the one sentence where you finally admitted that you hate being direct.
You think someone is a moron for responded to a self proclaimed dead wall such as yourself, and you think someone is a moron for not responding to you. Another one of your many contradictions.
I responded to the one sentence where you finally admitted that you hate being direct.
You think someone is a moron for responded to a self proclaimed dead wall such as yourself, and you think someone is a moron for not responding to you. Another one of your many contradictions.
I had called you a dead wall, not myself.
I think you should figure out why I had originally ignored that statement.
You love calling me an sff, why do you repeat it so often?
Why not just call it me in full?
Who cares whether you've given me a title?
You love silly titles, like "wrong".
Of course they love to ignore peoples arguments. They aren't interested in debating, they are solely interested in getting a response.
You can't get somebody to respond by ignoring what they say.
You get somebody to respond by either validating or invalidating what somebody says. It's called negative and positive attention and it's triggered by saying something, not by an absence of saying something.
I don't pay attention to people who don't respond, no one bothers with people like that.
You love calling me an sff, why do you repeat it so often?
Because you are stupid, you forget stuff, and you are an all around fucko.
Why not just call it me in full?
I find it amazing that you like being called names. Another sign you are a troll.
Who cares whether you've given me a title?
Apparently you.
You love silly titles, like "wrong".
That's not a title, dipshit.
You can't get somebody to respond by ignoring what they say.
Yes, you can.
You get somebody to respond by either validating or invalidating what somebody says. It's called negative and positive attention and it's triggered by saying something, not by an absence of saying something.
Saying something that doesn't have anything to do with what the person said is not the absence of saying something.
I don't pay attention to people who don't respond, no one bothers with people like that.
You have responded many times when I have completely ignored what you wrote.
Because you are stupid, you forget stuff, and you are an all around fucko.
No, it's because you seem to be in love.
What a freak.
I find it amazing that you like being called names. Another sign you are a troll.
No, you being in love with me doesn't make me a troll.
Ugh.
Apparently you.
No, I don't.
I just find it telling.
That's not a title, dipshit.
It becomes a title when you categorize and label certain arguments instead of rebutting them.
Yes, you can.
Refusing to actually respond to somebody tends to put people off.
That's not the way love works, bubba.
Saying something that doesn't have anything to do with what the person said is not the absence of saying something.
Nobody responds to something that has nothing to do with what the other person has said.
That is an absence of a reply.
You can't ignore somebodies comments and say something to them at the same time, you're just reacting to them whilst ignoring them.
Like if I cried whilst somebody said "how's you're day been" or if I said "Ohhhh look at those mountains" it would be an absence of me saying something in response to them.
That's how to get people to actually ignore you, by being a freak.
You have responded many times when I have completely ignored what you wrote.
I don't understand how you think drag queen is the same as enjoying going to the women's department to imagine what the dress would look like on a woman.
I don't understand how you think drag queen is the same as enjoying going to the women's department to imagine what the dress would look like on a woman.
You're dumb.
Take a closer look and read, I was implying that you were the ugly drag queen according to your logic.
You have no reason to feel awkward in the women's department. No one cares that you are there. They will automatically assume that you are buying the clothes for someone else.
You have no reason to feel awkward in the women's department. No one cares that you are there. They will automatically assume that you are buying the clothes for someone else.
Obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that you're stupid for missing my point.
You call me names so often, you clearly like doing it.
You are my greatest subject. You are as smart as a lab mouse, and you always confirm the results I want. You have failed 2 experiments now. Next time why don't you include yourself in the list of everybody when you make a claim about everyone.
You are my greatest subject. You are as smart as a lab mouse, and you always confirm the results I want. You have failed 2 experiments now. Next time why don't you include yourself in the list of everybody when you make a claim about everyone
You are incredibly stupid.
You never see things that way they are, so you have no idea whether your results have failed or not.
The lab mouse is never aware of the results. You are the lab mouse. Why is it that you make blanket statements about everybody that don't apply to yourself?
The lab mouse is never aware of the results. You are the lab mouse. Why is it that you make blanket statements about everybody that don't apply to yourself?
I made ONE comment about the entire site being stupid.
You think that matters?
You make blank statements that apply to yourself.
Why do I make make blank statements that don't apply to myself?
You mean statements that I make about you?
You think when I insult you that I insult everyone else.
I made ONE comment about the entire site being stupid.
The little mouse doesn't even know what comment the experiment was based on.
You think that matters?
Nope. You made a statement that I was able to test.
You make blank statements that apply to yourself.
A statement that applies to everyone is supposed to apply to yourself as well. You are such a narcissist you think you are so special that everyone acts completely differently than you.
Why do I make make blank statements that don't apply to myself?
Only you can tell us. So, why do you?
You mean statements that I make about you?
Statements you make about everybody/nobody.
You think when I insult you that I insult everyone else.
Why do you always assume you have the answer to the questions that you are really confused about?
You're more than just stupid.
How would you even know?
You're a special kind of stupid.
Says the guy who got the answer wrong to a question he asked then made conclusions on the wrong answer that he didn't wait to hear.
The little mouse doesn't even know what comment the experiment was based on.
The experiment was about a comment that you were not initially referring to.
That's what we know.
Nope. You made a statement that I was able to test.
And it failed.
A statement that applies to everyone is supposed to apply to yourself as well. You are such a narcissist you think you are so special that everyone acts completely differently than you.
I suppose that applies to everybody on this site, not in the real world though.
I think you have missed a huge clue.
Only you can tell us. So, why do you?
Because I'm not you.
Missed a clue?
Moron.
Statements you make about everybody/nobody.
You ain't everybody and I wonder why you'd call yourself nobody.
Why do you always assume you have the answer to the questions that you are really confused about?
Just because you are confused doesn't mean everybody else is.
Your little mind is a vacuum.
How would you even know?
Because I know about stupid people.
Says the guy who got the answer wrong to a question he asked
Don't like rhetorical questions?
I was asking for you, little runt.
Now you've got a silly answer
then made conclusions on the wrong answer that he didn't wait to hear.
I've heard your wrong answer way after I knew the correct answer, but all this was before I had asked this question for you.
You provide reasons for things before they take place.
Now this time the question has taken place and you look the fool.
The experiment was about a comment that you were not initially referring to.
That's what we know.
You have no idea which comment I am referring to. You are the lab mouse. You don't need to know.
And it failed.
The lab mouse thinking of the wrong statement doesn't fail the experiment.
I suppose that applies to everybody on this site, not in the real world though.
You aren't part of the real world?
I think you have missed a huge clue.
Only if you are admitting to being fake.
Because I'm not you.
Missed a clue?
Moron.
You are calling me a moron because I am smart enough to include myself in the group of all people.
You ain't everybody and I wonder why you'd call yourself nobody.
Awesome. Childish and stupid. What a great combination.
Just because you are confused doesn't mean everybody else is.
Your little mind is a vacuum.
You are the one who has the wrong answer to the question you asked. You are objectively the confused one.
Don't like rhetorical questions?
I am fine with rhetorical questions. You clearly didn't ask a rhetorical question seeing as you gave the wrong answer to the question right after. You needed to get the correct answer to your question, so it wasn't rhetorical.
I was asking for you, little runt.
Now you've got a silly answer
Right. You gave me a silly answer. You should have used the non silly answer.
I've heard your wrong answer way after I knew the correct answer, but all this was before I had asked this question for you.
You knew the answer to the question before you asked it, but then still asked the question and gave the incorrect answer? Why?
You provide reasons for things before they take place.
Most people aren't like you. Everyone else provides reasons for doing things before they do them. You like to do stuff wrong and say any bullshit explanation to account for your "reasons".
Now this time the question has taken place and you look the fool.
I don't actually. You placed a question then apparently used the wrong answer intentionally to make stupid conclusions. You look like a fool for claiming to know the right answer and using the wrong answer any way.
You have no idea which comment I am referring to. You are the lab mouse. You don't need to know.
You know nothing about experiments conducted on mice.
The lab mouse thinking of the wrong statement doesn't fail the experiment.
It can happen. You're evidence of this.
You aren't part of the real world?
No, the people on this site are not like the majority of people out there in the real world, dumbass. You just like to think that you've got a point.
Only if you are admitting to being fake.
You're assuming I am somehow like all the morons on CreateDebate.
Nah, I'm more like normal people.
You are calling me a moron because I am smart enough to include myself in the group of all people.
Except you ain't smart enough to realise what that group is like.
Awesome. Childish and stupid. What a great combination
You're imagining things yet again, within that stupid head.
You are the one who has the wrong answer to the question you asked. You are objectively the confused one.
Lol, you think we all rely on you for advice.
Dumbass.
I am fine with rhetorical questions. You clearly didn't ask a rhetorical question seeing as you gave the wrong answer to the question right after. You needed to get the correct answer to your question, so it wasn't rhetorical.
You're so stupid it hurts.
Right. You gave me a silly answer. You should have used the non silly answer.
You're so dumb.
You think that a silly answer isn't descriptive enough for you. I've told you what you need to know, now get out of here.
Most people aren't like you. Everyone else provides reasons for doing things before they do them. You like to do stuff wrong and say any bullshit explanation to account for your "reasons".
Whine, whine, whine.
I don't actually. You placed a question then apparently used the wrong answer intentionally to make stupid conclusions. You look like a fool for claiming to know the right answer and using the wrong answer any way.
You're so pathetic when you try to stage things. You don't know what the right answer is, so you can't possibly stage something I have said as being the wrong answer.
You know nothing about experiments conducted on mice.
You don't know anything about me.
It can happen. You're evidence of this.
My successful test doesn't prove that.
No, the people on this site are not like the majority of people out there in the real world, dumbass. You just like to think that you've got a point.
For simple things, these people are.
You're assuming I am somehow like all the morons on CreateDebate.
I have never once assumed that. You are way dumber than anyone on here.
Nah, I'm more like normal people.
Ha, wrong.
Except you ain't smart enough to realise what that group is like.
How is you making false claims about what the group is like not proof that you aren't smart enough to know what the group is like?
You're imagining things yet again, within that stupid head.
Ok, denial, stupidity, and childish behavior are a bad combination.
Lol, you think we all rely on you for advice.
Dumbass.
This has nothing to do with advice dumbass.
You're so stupid it hurts.
It hurts you when people point out that your normal question wasn't a rhetorical question? Sounds like your denial isn't working strong enough.
You're so dumb.
The guy that understands the conversation is not the one that is dumb.
You think that a silly answer isn't descriptive enough for you. I've told you what you need to know, now get out of here.
No, what you did was use the wrong answer, then claimed you knew the right answer even though you made conclusions based on the wrong answer before.
Whine, whine, whine.
That wasn't whining dumb shit.
You're so pathetic when you try to stage things. You don't know what the right answer is, so you can't possibly stage something I have said as being the wrong answer.
Your question was about what I was talking about. That is one of the subjects that I am an expert on. Why do you think your wrong answer about what I was talking about has more weight than what I say is the correct answer for what I was talking about?
You've spent so much time sat at your computer on CreateDebate that it's become the real world for you.
Rofl!
I have never once assumed that.
By saying that I was wrong to say that others were idiots and that I wasn't, you were implying that I was wrong to rule myself out and that I was somehow being hypocritical.
And you compared that to the reason that you are smart enough not to differentiate yourself from this site.
I have no reason to compare myself to people on this site, you can do that if you like, though.
You are way dumber than anyone on here.
You have just contradicted yourself.
Congratulations buffoon.
Ha, wrong.
Says the moron who thinks normal people ignore each other in order to get each others attention.
How is you making false claims about what the group is like not proof that you aren't smart enough to know what the group is like?
Instead of making false claims, I should apparently copy you and imply that I'm in the same mold.
You were implying that I should have done what you had said.
Moron.
Ok, denial, stupidity, and childish behavior are a bad combination.
It's even more childish accusing somebody else of it.
This has nothing to do with advice dumbass.
So in other words you were insisting and not advising me?
Changing in words yet again?
Sounds like your denial isn't working strong enough.
A rhetorical question is a question that I didn't expect you to answer, because I believed I provided a sufficient explanation for it.
I don't think you quite realise how people are gonna react.
It's a shame that you believe me pitying you and being repulsed by you indicts, wait a second, what's that word?
Denial?
They say it's more than just a river in Egypt.
The guy that understands the conversation is not the one that is dumb.
Obviously.
It's when you make basic assumptions about overtly general truths and be correct about it, while you still get whooped and swished in the argument you are engaged in.
No, what you did was use the wrong answer, then claimed you knew the right answer even though you made conclusions based on the wrong answer before
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!
How would you possibly expect us to think that you knew what the right answer was?
I don't think you realise what it means when we say "Cartman is on stage".
You're performing at the circus, not a press conference for leading pioneers!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAH!
Your question was about what I was talking about. That is one of the subjects that I am an expert on. Why do you think your wrong answer about what I was talking about has more weight than what I say is the correct answer for what I was talking about?
You honestly do not know what you're talking about!
By saying that I was wrong to say that others were idiots and that I wasn't, you were implying that I was wrong to rule myself out and that I was somehow being hypocritical.
No, you are not hypocritical, you are too fucking dumb to call anyone else stupid. Huge difference.
And you compared that to the reason that you are smart enough not to differentiate yourself from this site.
Wrong again. That has nothing to do with why I differentiate myself from you. That e fact that you are a complete fucking idiot is how I differentiate myself from you.
I have no reason to compare myself to people on this site, you can do that if you like, though.
No one is trying to compare you to the other people on this site. You are still the lab mouse that doesn't understand what is going on.
You have just contradicted yourself.
Congratulations buffoon.
No I didn't you stupid forgetful fucko.
Says the moron who thinks normal people ignore each other in order to get each others attention.
I didn't say normal people you stupid shit. I said fucking trolls like you do that. That's your only way to get attention. You ignore all of us while making a bunch of noise. I even proved that it was possible to get attention while ignoring the person you are trying to get attention from.
Instead of making false claims, I should apparently copy you and imply that I'm in the same mold.
What makes you so special?
You were implying that I should have done what you had said.
No, you fucking idiot. I implied that you should have done what you fucking said you would do. I proved that you would do exactly what I said you would do.
It's even more childish accusing somebody else of it.
Have you ever met a child who called another child childish?
So in other words you were insisting and not advising me?
Changing in words yet again?
You are the only one who changes words. It wasn't advice or insisting. You are not talking about anything that had anything to do with advice. I was telling you that you were wrong.
A rhetorical question is a question that I didn't expect you to answer, because I believed I provided a sufficient explanation for it.
That's not the definition of rhetorical question. Your explanation made no sense. And, your answer was definitely wrong.
I don't think you quite realise how people are gonna react.
It doesn't matter how people react.
It's a shame that you believe me pitying you and being repulsed by you indicts, wait a second, what's that word?
Denial?
They say it's more than just a river in Egypt.
You denying the facts indicates the denial. Douche.
How would you possibly expect us to think that you knew what the right answer was?
The question was about what I was saying. How could I possibly have the wrong answer?
You honestly do not know what you're talking about!
No, you fucking retard. You don't know what we are talking about.
No, you are not hypocritical, you are too fucking dumb to call anyone else stupid. Huge difference.
No, what you are saying is that I am not deliberately hypocritical. Doesn't change the fact that you were calling me hypocritical.
Wrong again. That has nothing to do with why I differentiate myself from you. That fact that you are a complete fucking idiot is how I differentiate myself from you.
That is not what you had said originally. You said that you don't differentiate yourself from this site and you used that as a rebuttal against me for when I had said that I am different from the rest of this site.
Why are you denying making this remark, all of a sudden.
No one is trying to compare you to the other people on this site. You are still the lab mouse that doesn't understand what is going on.
No, you are the lab mouse and you're choking up right now. You think that calling me dumb is evidence against me and makes look silly when I have said that I am different from the rest of this site.
No I didn't you stupid forgetful fucko.
You saying that I am dumber than everybody and that I ought not to suggest that I am different to other people aren't contradictions in your world.
Although you had put the emphasize on the latter argument.
You just use "dumbass" regularly as a name that you pathetically address me with, doesn't mean that you have actually efficiently used it as an argument.
I didn't say normal people you stupid shit. I said fucking trolls like you do that. That's your only way to get attention.
You have refused to give any reason. You never gave anybody any reason to think that normal have a different way of getting attention.
You ignore all of us while making a bunch of noise. I even proved that it was possible to get attention while ignoring the person you are trying to get attention from.
If trolls ignore you while making a bunch of noise, that would that they were getting peoples attention unintentionally. You can't intentionally ignore people while trying to get their attention. How do you know that you are even getting attention if you ignore people?
You ignore all of us while making a bunch of noise.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!
Stop trying to make me sound cute.
"You ignore all of us while making a bunch of noise".
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, you don't want to hug this some of a bitch.
Something that ignores you while making a bunch of noise sounds baby-like.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHHAH!
What makes you so special?
You believe that I am special, not myself. Why, would you like to feel special? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic.
No, you fucking idiot. I implied that you should have done what you fucking said you would do. I proved that you would do exactly what I said you would do.
What I say I should do is not what you say I should do. Don't go around accusing me of being a wussy.
Have you ever met a child who called another child childish?
Are you implying that we're both children? At least I know what makes you tick now.
You are the only one who changes words. It wasn't advice or insisting. You are not talking about anything that had anything to do with advice. I was telling you that you were wrong.
You telling me I was wrong means that you were telling me that I was wrong in what I had said, so you were instructing me. I think we know whose boss.
It doesn't matter how people react.
No one is falling you for, no one likes you. Stop trying to impress us with this sweet repetition.
You denying the facts indicates the denial. Douche.
You think douche sounds sweet? Well, the facts ain't douche, therefore you ain't sweet, just your repetition is.
The question was about what I was saying. How could I possibly have the wrong answer?
That's what I'm so baffled about.
No, you fucking retard. You don't know what we are talking about.
You don't have the honesty to ask me what you think I am really trying to imply. You seem to think that I like to put myself down.
No, what you are saying is that I am not deliberately hypocritical. Doesn't change the fact that you were calling me hypocritical.
It isn't hypocritical to be so dumb you don't realize that talking about everyone includes yourself, it's just plain stupid. Not hypocritical.
That is not what you had said originally. You said that you don't differentiate yourself from this site and you used that as a rebuttal against me for when I had said that I am different from the rest of this site.
There was no discussion about differentiating myself. You brought that up for the first time in your last argument.
Why are you denying making this remark, all of a sudden.
I have had to deny every single remark you have claimed I have said because you are always wrong about what I say.
No, you are the lab mouse and you're choking up right now.
You were literally experimented on.
You think that calling me dumb is evidence against me and makes look silly when I have said that I am different from the rest of this site.
No, I think pointing out all the dumb things you believe is evidence against you.
You saying that I am dumber than everybody and that I ought not to suggest that I am different to other people aren't contradictions in your world.
Act different. I have not been referring to you being different. I have always been talking about you not acting different. You act the same, just dumber.
You just use "dumbass" regularly as a name that you pathetically address me with, doesn't mean that you have actually efficiently used it as an argument.
You call me moron right after saying the exact opposite of what the statement I said means.
You have refused to give any reason. You never gave anybody any reason to think that normal have a different way of getting attention.
I don't think normal people ignore other people to get attention. Normal people get attention by responding to what the person said.
If trolls ignore you while making a bunch of noise, that would that they were getting peoples attention unintentionally.
This is completely irrelevant.
You can't intentionally ignore people while trying to get their attention.
Ignoring someone and getting their attention are 2 different things. You can do 2 different things differently. Intentionally doing 1 thing does not mean that you can't unintentionally do something else.
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!
You just typed out a loud fake laugh. That is the perfect example of you just trying to make noise.
Stop trying to make me sound cute.
Apparently you have no sense of humor or sense of cute.
Something that ignores you while making a bunch of noise sounds baby-like.
I have called you childish. Sounds like it fits.
You believe that I am special, not myself. Why, would you like to feel special? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Pathetic.
Wrong again dipshit. This entire argument is me claiming you aren't special. Good job douche.
What I say I should do is not what you say I should do.
No shit. That's why we are arguing. What was the point of this obvious statement? You actually did what I said you would do. The fact that you admit that you don't say that you will do the same thing I say you will do proves you are too dumb to even know what you will do. I know what you will do better than you do.
Don't go around accusing me of being a wussy.
Why accuse you of being something so benign when I can prove you are a stupid forgetful fucko?
Are you implying that we're both children? At least I know what makes you tick now.
No. I was implying the answer was no. That means the person who calls the other childish is not a child. That means I was implying that I was not a child and that you were.
No one is falling you for, no one likes you. Stop trying to impress us with this sweet repetition.
Stop going off topic and you won't hear the repetition that whatever you say doesn't matter.
You think douche sounds sweet? Well, the facts ain't douche, therefore you ain't sweet, just your repetition is.
This means you agree that you were in denial about everything I said. Cool. Finally.
That's what I'm so baffled about.
The sad thing is that you are baffled even after I gave you the correct answer. Just listen to the correct answers and you won't be baffled.
You don't have the honesty to ask me what you think I am really trying to imply. You seem to think that I like to put myself down.
Wait, is that what you think I was thinking that you were implying? That you like putting yourself down? Is that what you think this is about?
It isn't hypocritical to be so dumb you don't realize that talking about everyone includes yourself, it's just plain stupid. Not hypocritical.
Nah, talking about everyone else does not include myself. I'm not the others. Everyone would mean the others. If I had said included myself, I would have said so.
I don't consider myself a part of this site and you know this, so obviously "everyone" does not entail me.
You shall learn what context means.
There was no discussion about differentiating myself. You brought that up for the first time in your last argument.
Nah, you assumed that I was talking about you differentiating yourself, when I wasn't, and you replied to this with a statement about differentiating yourself.
I have had to deny every single remark you have claimed I have said because you are always wrong about what I say.
Poor Cartman.
You were literally experimented on.
Yet you were so dumb that you thought you were ignoring me. I find it pathetic when idiots tell me that they are ignoring me yet they are actually responding to me by saying it, I love how they just love to react!
No, I think pointing out all the dumb things you believe is evidence against you.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH!
Act different. I have not been referring to you being different. I have always been talking about you not acting different. You act the same, just dumber.
I act the same but in a different way?
HAHAHA!
You call me moron right after saying the exact opposite of what the statement I said means.
Nah, you just told me that you were arguing that I was an idiot. You weren't arguing that I was an idiot, you just use it as a name to pin on me, or something to accuse me of.
Don't you ever change? You never improve, boring as always.
I don't think normal people ignore other people to get attention. Normal people get attention by responding to what the person said.
Otherwise it is impossible to get attention.
This is completely irrelevant.
Yes, because it's fallacious.
Ignoring someone and getting their attention are 2 different things. You can do 2 different things differently. Intentionally doing 1 thing does not mean that you can't unintentionally do something else.
A troll is not someone who intentionally ignores people while unintentionally gaining their attention. You're a poor psychologist.
A troll ain't somebody who accidently ignores someone while intentionally getting their attention either, you can't accidently ignore someone. That's just stupid.
Which one of these stupid statements are you now applying to me?
You just typed out a loud fake laugh. That is the perfect example of you just trying to make noise.
But it doesn't mean that I am ignoring you, does it?
Why, are you saying that by doing this I have unintentionally got your attention?
Let's do it, HAHAHAHAHAHAH. The self-fulfilling prophecy, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Wait, I knew by your response that by doing this I am getting your attention. How can I weigh up your response if I wasn't listening?
HAHAHAHAHHA.
Apparently you have no sense of humor or sense of cute.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. You're a nutcracker.
I have called you childish. Sounds like it fits.
You really do lack psychological insight, don't you? When babies deliberately make noise in order to get your attention, they are not ignoring you.
Pavlov would not impressed by you.
Wrong again dipshit. This entire argument is me claiming you aren't special. Good job douche.
So you were arguing with yourself and not me?
You actually did what I said you would do.
How can anybody argue with you when you are stuck in another world?
The fact that you admit that you don't say that you will do the same thing I say you will do proves you are too dumb to even know what you will do.
I do what I say I will do, not what you say I do.
What's worse is that you aren't even aware of what I say that I do.
Nor what you tell me I should do. You always love to call me wrong, this is how you accuse me of not doing what I should do.
I know what you will do better than you do.
I bet you think you can predict my future, Lmao. Tell me something that comes to pass and even if you are slightly correct I would pay you a million, Lmao.
You're a poor trickster.
Why accuse you of being something so benign when I can prove you are a stupid forgetful fucko?
God, you seem to masturbate to idiocy. What's the obsession with idiocy and stupidity?
No. I was implying the answer was no. That means the person who calls the other childish is not a child. That means I was implying that I was not a child and that you were.
Now are you claiming that you were asking a rhetorical question?
Stop going off topic and you won't hear the repetition that whatever you say doesn't matter.
Nah, you just want the whole conversation to fit within your tiny world.
This means you agree that you were in denial about everything I said. Cool. Finally.
Really, how the hell does it? You don't actually think through what you say.
The sad thing is that you are baffled even after I gave you the correct answer. Just listen to the correct answers and you won't be baffled.
You're answers of never correct. You don't know what a troll is, you don't know what attention is, nor are you aware of what ignoring someone means.
Wait, is that what you think I was thinking that you were implying? That you like putting yourself down? Is that what you think this is about?
Nah, talking about everyone else does not include myself.
You weren't talking about everyone else. If you leave off the word else it includes yourself.
Everyone would mean the others.
This is a direct contradiction. Either "everyone else" means the others or "everyone" means the others.
If I had said included myself, I would have said so.
You constantly leave out words that would drastically change the meaning of your statements. You wouldn't have said so.
I don't consider myself a part of this site and you know this, so obviously "everyone" does not entail me.
We weren't talking about this site only. The lab mouse doesn't understand what the conversation is about.
You shall learn what context means.
Not from you. You have proven that you don't understand context. There was no context to our conversation that indicated that we were only talking about this website.
Nah, you assumed that I was talking about you differentiating yourself, when I wasn't, and you replied to this with a statement about differentiating yourself.
The only time I replied about differentiating myself was directly after you mentioned it. Sorry.
Poor Cartman.
Stop acting like a dumb wall and you won't have anything to feel sorry about.
Yet you were so dumb that you thought you were ignoring me.
I was ignoring you dumbass. You didn't say anything that had anything to do with you being a drag queen.
I find it pathetic when idiots tell me that they are ignoring me yet they are actually responding to me by saying it, I love how they just love to react!
ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
Talking to you doesn't mean I didn't refuse to take notice of you or that I didn't disregard you. I typed a random thought as my response and you satisfied my experiment. Thanks.
I act the same but in a different way?
For example, in baseball, the pitchers all throw pitches, but they do it differently. The act the same, but in a different way.
Nah, you just told me that you were arguing that I was an idiot. You weren't arguing that I was an idiot, you just use it as a name to pin on me, or something to accuse me of.
No wonder you can't debate. You think ever fact is an insult to you personally.
Don't you ever change? You never improve, boring as always.
It takes 2. There is no way to spice up a conversation with a self described dumb wall such as yourself.
Otherwise it is impossible to get attention.
My experiment has already proven that statement incorrect. You are proof that you don't have to respond to what the person said in order to get attention from them.
Yes, because it's fallacious.
You just admitted to committing a fallacy, dipshit.
A troll is not someone who intentionally ignores people while unintentionally gaining their attention. You're a poor psychologist.
A troll ain't somebody who accidently ignores someone while intentionally getting their attention either, you can't accidently ignore someone. That's just stupid.
Which one of these stupid statements are you now applying to me?
I think you accidentally ignore people. I agree it is extremely stupid when you do that. You think you are responding to what is said but you say the exact opposite of the words that you quote all the time.
But it doesn't mean that I am ignoring you, does it?
Yeah. Since someone in your position shouldn't be laughing at how dumb they are, you must have ignored what I was saying.
Why, are you saying that by doing this I have unintentionally got your attention?
Actually, you said it was unintentional.
You really do lack psychological insight, don't you? When babies deliberately make noise in order to get your attention, they are not ignoring you.
Ah, your go to move. Changing the subject. We weren't talking about babies crying. But, I am glad we are finally in agreement that your actions are exactly like a baby crying. That's all I wanted you to admit.
Pavlov would not impressed by you.
Of course. He experimented on much smarter animals.
So you were arguing with yourself and not me?
I will take that as you admitting that you don't debate.
How can anybody argue with you when you are stuck in another world?
What does you doing exactly what the experimenter said you would do have anything to do with arguing against me?
I do what I say I will do, not what you say I do.
You have never once done what you said you would do. You did do exactly what I said you would do though.
What's worse is that you aren't even aware of what I say that I do.
Enlighten me.
Nor what you tell me I should do.
You may have a claim that I am not aware of what you say you will do, but it takes an extra level of delusion to make the claim that I don't know what I have told you to do. I actually pay attention to the conversation and have not described myself as forgetful like you have.
You always love to call me wrong, this is how you accuse me of not doing what I should do.
Not at all. I tell you what you should do. You say the opposite because you deny everything without thinking. Then, I set up an experiment to prove that you didn't do what you should have done based on your "thoughts". Then, I accuse you of failing the experiment.
I bet you think you can predict my future, Lmao.
I only claimed to be able to predict the future better than you. That means I just need to predict the future in any way 1 time.
Tell me something that comes to pass and even if you are slightly correct I would pay you a million, Lmao.
Dude, you won't even acknowledge that my experiment was successful. There is no way I would ever get a million from you. Why won't you pay me for correctly predicting that you would respond to me even if I ignored your statements?
Here is my prediction: you will use "lol" in your response to this.
I hope you don't call it a self fulfilling prophecy like you did when no one predicted what you would do.
God, you seem to masturbate to idiocy. What's the obsession with idiocy and stupidity?
Boy are you conceited. You think you are cute and that people masturbate to you. Dang.
Now are you claiming that you were asking a rhetorical question?
I wasn't. I was just explaining the situation. It was a rhetorical question though.
Really, how the hell does it? You don't actually think through what you say
You didn't have any counter argument. Therefore, you are admitting that I am right.
You're answers of never correct. You don't know what a troll is, you don't know what attention is, nor are you aware of what ignoring someone means.
Are you trying to describe yourself? You nailed it. That would make sense. You do seem so narcissistic that you would always be thinking about yourself whenever you describe anyone.
Lol.
It's ok. You can just laugh in the corner like an idiot instead of explaining yourself.
You weren't talking about everyone else. If you leave off the word else it includes yourself.
I was not in amongst that particular group that I was talking about, so no.
I don't count myself as some member on this site, of course you are going to pretend that I didn't say it.
This is a direct contradiction. Either "everyone else" means the others or "everyone" means the others.
If I use the word "else" it would imply that I was in the same group that the particular characteristic applies only to the other members in the group and not me.
How, I am not a part of that group, so I don't use the term "everyone else".
You constantly leave out words that would drastically change the meaning of your statements. You wouldn't have said so.
What group that the thing or entity in question belongs to is determines the context. Learn to figure out groups.
We weren't talking about this site only.
No, you made this into a discussion about people in general other than just on this site. I was only talking about the people on this site.
The lab mouse doesn't understand what the conversation is about.
It is statements like this that make people fed up of you at times.
There was no context to our conversation that indicated that we were only talking about this website.
Re-read my very first post. I think you have a love/hate relationship with this simple fact.
The only time I replied about differentiating myself was directly after you mentioned it. Sorry.
I mentioned that I was different to the people on this site, then you gave a retort telling me that I should not differentiate myself.
Stop acting like a dumb wall and you won't have anything to feel sorry about.
You're really bad at this garbage.
I was ignoring you dumbass. You didn't say anything that had anything to do with you being a drag queen.
This post is proof that you were not ignoring me. Thank you for your response.
ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.
But you had not failed to take notice of me and you have acknowledged what I was saying, that's why you insult me.
Talking to you doesn't mean I didn't refuse to take notice of you or that I didn't disregard you. I typed a random thought as my response and you satisfied my experiment. Thanks.
Experiments aren't random. You can't get specific results if you are conducting a random premise with that experiment, experiments are intentional, you can't conduct a random premise.
For example, in baseball, the pitchers all throw pitches, but they do it differently. The act the same, but in a different way.
They are not acting the same.
No wonder you can't debate. You think ever fact is an insult to you personally.
I just believe that every argument that you use based on the premise that I am dumb. This is factually incorrect, but I repeat myself.
It takes 2. There is no way to spice up a conversation with a self described dumb wall such as yourself.
If I'm as bad as I sound then don't let my drag you down to my level, knucklehead.
My experiment has already proven that statement incorrect. You are proof that you don't have to respond to what the person said in order to get attention from them.
You're repeating yourself. You're guilty of it.
You just admitted to committing a fallacy, dipshit.
You love calling me names. Ugh.
I think you accidentally ignore people. I agree it is extremely stupid when you do that. You think you are responding to what is said but you say the exact opposite of the words that you quote all the time.
If you misinterpret what someone says, then this is proof that you aren't ignoring them.
Yeah. Since someone in your position shouldn't be laughing at how dumb they are, you must have ignored what I was saying.
I've spotted one of the most major fallacies here!
Actually, you said it was unintentional.
I try to draw your attention to the facts, so whenever I try to get your attention focused, it is intentional. Otherwise if you didn't address them, I would not have caught your attention.
Attention is mutual in all circumstances, it's a general rule. Attention ain't the same as love though, so you can get over your little crush that you have.
Ah, your go to move. Changing the subject. We weren't talking about babies crying. But, I am glad we are finally in agreement that your actions are exactly like a baby crying. That's all I wanted you to admit.
Actually, it was all part of the same subject. You used people who act like babies as evidence that they ignore people, I refuted this by destroying your claim that your comparison was relevant.
Of course. He experimented on much smarter animals.
You don't know what animals are. Just be glad that Pavlov was not world renowned for experiments performed on humans.
I will take that as you admitting that you don't debate.
I was trying to. It was not my fault that I was not able to.
What does you doing exactly what the experimenter said you would do have anything to do with arguing against me?
I think the repetition siren is now going off again. Please, stop making me occasionally repeat myself, when you repeat yourself I sometimes end up doing it too.
Good, now I've told you this for the first time, I've no longer repeated myself in this case.
You have never once done what you said you would do. You did do exactly what I said you would do though.
Repetition alert, repetition alert. At the double, at the double.
Enlighten me.
It's so easy to do so that I've almost done it already.
You may have a claim that I am not aware of what you say you will do
Even if you are not aware of I what I say I will do, it doesn't change the fact that you are indeed paying attention.
but it takes an extra level of delusion to make the claim that I don't know what I have told you to do.
Please, continue to pay attention, it's funny.
I actually pay attention to the conversation
I know, Cartman.
and have not described myself as forgetful like you have.
You love accusing me of being a blank wall, what's up, there are no more brick walls for you to talk to? Don't blame me.
Not at all. I tell you what you should do.
You're repetition is masquerading as a new insight. Or at least you try to disguise it as such.
You say the opposite because you deny everything without thinking.
Really, you're just rephrasing what you have previously said, at least I'm not repeating myself any longer.
Then, I set up an experiment to prove that you didn't do what you should have done based on your "thoughts". Then, I accuse you of failing the experiment.
You just regurgitate the same old lines, don't you? You seem to think that repeating your lines while changing your choice synonymous words every time will
somehow persuade me. You seem to think "right, I used this word, but this word didn't work, so I'll change to using this word".
Actually, I think an awful lot about stuff.
I only claimed to be able to predict the future better than you. That means I just need to predict the future in any way 1 time.
When it comes down to it, based on deduction it appears like you believe that you have some amazing luck that you think enables you are always right.
Dude, you won't even acknowledge that my experiment was successful. There is no way I would ever get a million from you. Why won't you pay me for correctly predicting that you would respond to me even if I ignored your statements?
Here is my prediction: you will use "lol" in your response to this.
I hope you don't call it a self fulfilling prophecy like you did when no one predicted what you would do.
A self fulfilling prophecy occurs because you try to push situations so they end up matching the underlying assumptions that you seem to carry round with you.
It's be a self fulfilling prophecy, just for you lol.
Boy are you conceited. You think you are cute and that people masturbate to you. Dang.
No, you masturbate to a false representation that you have of me. EAAYUCCCK.
I wasn't. I was just explaining the situation. It was a rhetorical question though.
Correct, it was a rhetorical question, because you meant it as such. Same with me, even if someone's rhetorical question is inaccurate, doesn't change the fact that it's a rhetorical question.
I hope you now know what I mean when I say that context is based on character.
You didn't have any counter argument. Therefore, you are admitting that I am right.
Repetition. Emergency. Please Evacuate.
Are you trying to describe yourself? You nailed it. That would make sense. You do seem so narcissistic that you would always be thinking about yourself whenever you describe anyone.
But you weren't completely describing me. Do you see what I mean know when I tell you that you create inaccurate representations of me that you constantly masturbate to?
It's ok. You can just laugh in the corner like an idiot instead of explaining yourself.
But I already knew I was wrong about lots of things. So if everything I know is wrong, then something I knew was right (?!)
Anyway, I look forward to this series of topics.
Regarding the fossil fuels, if oil did not come from decaying plants and animals then why is the bulk of it found in areas which used to be ancient ocean floors or massive plant grown areas?
The oil being emitted from deep within the Earth is especially able to permeate ocean floors due to their general lesser density than harder and rockier surfaces, such as on the land masses.
Thanks for your interest in my series.
The next one is gonna knock your socks off, amigo!
A bit more on oil is not in short supply, and NOT a fossil fuel. That notion originated 100 years ago and has now been roundly debunked.....
To begin with, oil is not a fossil fuel. This is a theory put forth by 18th century scientists. Within 50 years, Germany and France's scientists had attacked the theory of petroleum's biological roots. In fact, oil is abiotic, not the product of long decayed biological matter. And oil, for better or for worse, is not a non-renewable resource. It, like coal, and natural gas, replenishes from sources within the mantle of earth. This is the real and true science of oil. Read all about it!
In fact, working in the 1950s, Russian and Ukrainian scientists, cut off from the Western World's oil supply, applied their keen minds to the problem and, by the 1960s, had thoroughly demolished the idea of oil as a 'fossil fuel,' Is it any wonder then that Russia is one of if not the leading producers and exporters of oil. The isolation of the Cold War forced Russia to dig deeper, literally, to find oil deeper in the earth in some places, and to look in other places where no one had thought to look to reveal more.
And to others who have oil, it must either rattle its saber, as with Venezuela, threaten to kill its president who will not buckle and sell all his oil to America. And with the Saudis we will protect them from their own terrorists and any Saddam that comes along. And we will get in bed with them so long as we can have the lion's share of their oil, and the say-so as to who gets the rest. And therein lays the evil genius, secret and sham of the 'Peak Oil' put on.
If oil, as coal, and natural gas, restores itself by nature, if we will more likely run into it then out of it, how do we continue to make money on it? Certainly not by giving oil away at some reasonable price. After World War II, oil was about 25 cents a gallon at the pump. Even given the spiraling inflation since then-last week I paid $3.50 a gallon for it in New York City, 14 times that price. A week after the summer holiday season ended (the peak usage season), oil is down to $3 a gallon. I doubt if I'm the only one who notices oil's price shoot up every summer, then slither down a bit after, and then climb up in the middle of the winter when the heating bills waft in, and old and poor people who can't afford the hikes begin to freeze and die in their own homes.
Someone is shilling for the American petro-brokers, because 'Peak Oil' is a wonderful concept to use to go out and war for "the control" of oil resources. So that a barrel of crude can suddenly jump from $20 to $70 to $100 a barrel, or to two, three or four hundred dollars a barrel, therefore providing exponentially expanding profits for oil companies and oil suppliers who relish the idea of having an "inelastic demand" for their gasoline. 'Peak Oil,' as writer Dave McGowan points out in his priceless Newsletters, which you can find at Educate-Yourself.org, 'Peak Oil' will even drive oil companies like Shell, to attempt to shut down an incredibly profitable facility, like the one it owns in Bakersfield, California,.
Let's demystify it all.
The real reason a company like Shell Oil would close a facility like Bakersfield-to bulldoze it, stop it-is to halt the production, refining, and supply to drive up the price of oil. It's that goddamn simple and ugly. And we're doing the same thing today in Iraq, bulldozing a country, to control and reduce its oil supply. Never mind supplying a botched democracy that we can't even supply for ourselves in America.
Concurrently, we are also bringing apocalypse to its population, thinning it with more than 100,000 dead, tearing its infrastructure apart, water, sewage, power, media, hospitals, name it. We are decentralizing Iraq's cities, driving people out of them or out of the country, or bombing them back to the Stone Age as our generals are so found of saying. And Iraq, like Afghanistan, is the paradigm of the future, of how we will engulf and devour countries, cities, even our own, like New Orleans for instance, whose Gulf is a rich source of oil, and through whose ports pass a large percentage of our nation's supply.
The U.S. political henchmen are thinning the Iraq population to fatten the profits of the oil barons like David Rockefeller. In McGowan's own inimical words, from page three of another Newsletter:
THE ROCKEFELLER CORPORATE OIL MAJORS should be thrown into jail for selling fraudulently priced items as well as cheating on generations of their corporate taxes (due to tax write off 'depletion allowances,' which they knew were lies. This abiotic oil story is perhaps the largest underground ((no pun intended)) scam story of the past 200 years: an ongoing corporate success of pricing abiotic renewable oil to act out an artificial scarcity, combined with all the related ideologies required to sell that motif of artificial scarcity, and all the millions they have made and still make on the fraud, and all the tax dollars they have, stolen, etc."
In this concept of 'Peak Oil' you have the system's secret to hold the world hostage. Not that we shouldn't take care to not overuse oil, not that we should avoid conservation, or even to stop poking the planet, and actually seek purely organic ways in which to live. But now, now that we are here, and have billions of people to sustain, we must not let vast numbers of them be harmed, murdered, abused, because of feigned shortages, economies overturned by outrageous prices, everyday working people be bankrupted by same, to get to work, to warm their homes, to cook their families' food, to participate in an organized society. We must not make the beasts, the Bilderbergers, the elites, the oligarchs use the 'Peak Oil' lever to bend the backs of the world on its wrack.
Believing in 'Peak Oil' is not a price to pay to avoid the price of drilling for oil in new ways, for setting fair and unwavering commodity prices. The cost of blood and lives and the future of nations are too much to pay for the folly of 'Peak Oil.' In fact, realizing that oil is a self-renewing resource puts the neocon agenda into a new perspective. Instead of seeing 'Peak Oil' as the end days of technological civilization literally losing its power, see this idea as the further manipulation towards fascist power and subjugation that it is: still another way to scare the world into believing its resources are terminally finite, and that we must be led into another and another war that must be waged to survive.
If we do not accept the lie, the manipulation of 'Peak Oil," it is not to say we can't devise new systems to bring life and the world forward. It is only to put the petroleum barons on notice. It then gives us a chance to bring people together, to tear away the false scarcity, to share resources, to experience peace, to alleviate poverty with the abundance of renewable hydrocarbon resources, as with the abundance of the human imagination. Or else we end up with another Ruppert rubric, Sizing Up the Competition - Is China the Endgame?, another piece of priceless paranoia to peddle for perdition, another dark ops for a bright new generation of believers. More war, endless war it is, to enrich the already rich, to impoverish the already poor.
Do not let this happen, even in the short run. As reported by the Energy Information Administration, International Energy Agency, files: "THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF OIL."