Gary H wrote:
David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Gary H wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Those of us who were there are not deceived by revisionist
histories.
In those days, it was big bad IBM versus tiny helpless
Microsoft, not
the other way around. Microsoft didn't (and couldn't) twist
IBM's
arm.


Ya know, all this really isn't about Bill Gates or Microsoft
Per Se. It's about the greed factor and the power factor and
the control factor. The desire for absolute power and to
corrupt absolutely . The sort of thing that rears its ugly
head virtually every single day of our lives. Like Enron,
Hollinger international and on and on.

With Microsoft, like many others it *is* about greed and power.

With the oil industry, it *is* about greed and power.
For example, I live in the north-eastern part of this north
American continent. In the summertime, the price of gas goes
sky-high because of the demand and heating oil drops and in
the wintertime the price of heating fuel goes sky-high because
of demand and gas drops. The immediate response or belief
drilled into the general public is that there is a shortage of
oil. There is NOT.
There is plenty of oil. I know, because where I live, we are
net exporters of oil.

Super. But unless you can demonstrate your area's exports are
enough to power the planet that little factiod means nothing
about the state of the world's oil supply.

Overly simplistic bull****.

Your claim wasn't just overly simplistic it was fundamentally
flawed logic.

It's all of the sources worldwide that supplies the planet

Which is why your logic had no sense to it.

and there is plenty at the moment.

You've not provided any evidence of it.

It will eventually run out, so I guess the oil guys figure
they'll get their money now, while the gettin' is good..

But sane, rational, 'good guy' you would wait till there isn't any?

You don't notice a teensy flaw in your business plan?

The problem is that with the increased demand, nobody is
building extra refining capacity. Especially those who
*control* the industry. You know, the Exxons, Shell, and so on.

They haven't built new refineries in a coon's age because they
can't get permits as environmentalists have essentially blocked
every technologically feasible source of new energy production.

Again, overly simplistic bull****.

Just the facts, mam.

It's gotten to the point where these *******s are driving the
crap out of a barrel of oil because (get this) they're
expecting a friggin' snow storm in the north-east of the
continent.

Wouldn't be so bad if you folks up there would ever let them
build a bloody pipeline too but, nooooooo. So when it's socked
in every other means of transport is cut off and you're stuck
with whatever local supplies have been pre stocked.

Again, over simplistic. It's not that building a pipeline is not
permitted, it that it's not permitted to build it the *way* you
guys want to do it.

Metal tube in the ground. You got some other kind?


Stupid a**hole. The pipeline would be over a coupla thousand miles
of Tundra. Do you know what that is?

Sure, I know what it is. I do not, however, know where the hell
you're located so get off you self indulgent high horse.

I doubt it. Why let factual information get in the way. You
cannot bury pipe in perma-frost. Also, when run on the surface,
migration paths for caribou and other migratory species *must* be
considered. The route chosen by our government, which would have
addressed all those concerns was too costly and too much trouble
for administrators of the US oil industry so, they wouldn't build
it. So, screw ya, do without it.

Typical whiner. Can't do this. Can't do that. Then blame it on
someone else.

Good gawd a'mighty, what the hell are you on about. There's no blame
being placed on anyone.

Why is it that some people think that denying what they do in the very
next sentence is a 'logical' argument?


I really think you need to not only learn to read, but learn to
understand what you read. What is written below is a *statement* not a
*blame*. You're definitely mistaking me for someone who gives a **** as
to whether or not the oil gets south of the border.

Your assessment of virtually everything is a 'blame' of one sort or the
other. In this particular case, it's a blame you apparently consider
thankfully 'averted': the dirty rotten cheap ******* oil companies from
"f**king up some other country's environment."


It's strictly the US government and US oil interests who are whining,
because they can't get their own way in implementing a pipeline from
Alaska (that's US territory) through Canada (that's our territory).
They want to do it cheap and dirty and consequently, go about f**king
up some other country's environment like they've done with their
own. Canada says no, meet these criteria or forget it. Don't you
think the US would do the same if things were reversed??

I've already seen how it can bes done cooperatively and with extensive
environmental 'considerations', as you call it, with the existing
Alyeska pipeline so your claims do not jibe with reality.

If your government is going to decide everything then why don't you
folks build it your own blessed selves?

Of course we decide everything in this case, It's still our country.
I suppose it is? I haven't looked at Dubbya's latest moves yet
today. You *do* understand that Canada is not part of the US I assume?

When attempting to work with someone else it's never 'all' one or the
other and that you seem to think so is likely one of the problems.

Man, you can't play ball with Goliath when he's continually shoving the
bat up your ass.

I supposed this isn't a 'blame' either.

We don't need to build it. We don't want to build it. We have no
reason to build it. We have enough oil, we don't need any more.
Besides, it's US oil, not Canadian oil. Already told you that a
number of times as well. It's US oil coming from a US State and
Canada *happens* to be in the way.

Thanks for being a good neighbor.

Good neighbor? If "good neighbor" is defined by giving up your right to
implement your own rules in your own country in what you perceive as
being the best and least destructive, Then I say f**k it, be a lousy
neighbor. Don't see much "good neighbor" coming north from your neck of
the woods, except when it serves "American interests". Takes 2 to tango
mister.

IMO a "good neighbor" is defined, in part at least, as being reasonable,
rational and, ideally, cordial and helpful but I'm not getting that
impression from you.

We *do* have environmental protection rules up this way, and
where we have them, we apply them.

Good for you. So stop whining about the costs they impose.

Ha, how many times do you have to be told that is not where the costs
come from. The costs are fixed by the New York Stock Exchange and
Futures Buyers. Jeeze, you *can't possibly* be that dumb and unaware
of the world around you. Haven't you noticed statements like "The
price of oil for delivery in February will be ....", for example or,
the price of oil was up on the NYSE today due to "profit taking"
(like that excuses it). How in the hell does anyone *know* what the
situation is gonna be in February? Nobody knows what it will be like
next friggin' week for chrissake.

Supply and demand.


Supply and ****, we're talking months into the future. Supply *and*
demand is what happens in the present.

Simply not so. Companies of all kinds, not just 'oil', have to deal with
future supplies for the simple fact they hope to be in business past 'the
present' and not everything just spontaneously appears on your dock the
instant you may need it, at least not without planning into the future. So
if see you won't be able to get what you need *then* it affects what you do
*now*.

Btw, in your futures trading examples, the price generally goes *down* on
"profit taking," not up, (increased supply as the profit takers try to
sell) and that "nobody knows... what the situation is gonna be in February"
is why it's a risk. Futures traders are gambling on the price, they don't
'fix' it, so if that "for delivery in February" price they paid turns out
to be high they lose.


Not whining about that part. Whining because the goddam crowd of
thieves on Wall St are the cause of these increases.

Yeah, it's all a 'plot' just to get you.

Not a plot, just plain GREED, as I've said a number of times
already. Why do you always have to try and read in something that is
not there? Really don't feel too secure in your argument or what??

"Greed" is a motive and if it were not acted on you wouldn't be so
incensed. But you are so you obviously feel it's being acted on and that is
'the plot'. Or, in your case, I suspect it's many plots as you seem to use
it as a universal explanation for every perceived ill.

Just that I understand supply and demand in a world market.

WooHoo. From this thread and others I get the impression you think you
understand a lot about everything. I would argue the point. But???

I provide the logic behind my 'understanding' so it can be evaluated.

And you wonder why you sound like a conspiracy buff or paranoid.

I say GREED. Do you need a definition? What could that possibly have
to do with "conspiracy and paranoia". Man, you make absolutely no sense
sometimes. I notice it normally occurs "argument legs" get really
wobbly. :-)

Explained just above. "Greed" is simply a motive behind the 'conspiracy'
and without the act the motive is moot so you'd have nothing to rail about.

Keeerist, you're sure hung up on the psychological babble talk. Find
another angle, this one is wearing thin.

Well, yes, your insistence on using it is getting rather old.


Really dumb statement. I guess enough is enough. Later

I was referring to your insistence that every perceived ill is due to "greed."