Re: Cheap oil forever!

From: susupply (susupply_at_mindspring.com)
Date: 06/15/04 

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:56:19 GMT

<royls@telus.net>

Stunned that someone actually pays attention to what he writes,

 wrote in message news:40ce979f.52418589@news.telus.net...
> Here's another fine example of Patrick's astonishing gift for
> dishonest context-chopping. Read and learn what true commitment to
> deceitfulness really is.

Oh, they'll learn oodles about "deceitfulness", all right.

[snip]

> >Moron, your claim was that the PRIMARY cause of price increases after the
> >early 1970s was:
> >
> >> >> >> ...primarily
> >> >> >>because the fraction of current oil supply that can be extracted
at
> >> >> >>such very low cost has been declining.
> >
> >YOUR SOURCE
>
> <yawn> Oh, grow up, little boy. I provided a source of historical
> price charts that proved I was right about the direction of prices and
> Grinch was wrong.

In fact, the chart showed it was you were wrong about consistently declining
prices for 100 years. And (by presenting the geo-political context for the
rises) that you were also wrong about the reasons for the price increases in
1973 and after.

> I did not say I bought into everything on the site.
> Much of it makes no sense, like the silly idea of averaging the price
> of oil over half a century as a guide to future prices (which you so
> hilariously embraced).

But, it does make sense to use geo-political anomalies--which are so labeled
for your convenience--as a guide?

> >says it was OPEC using the Israeli war of 1973 as an excuse for
> >an embargo, the Iranian revolution, and the Iraq-Iran war of the early
'80s.
> >Which is what Grinch told you.
>
> <yawn> The Iran-Iraq war, the last of those events, has been over for
> like 15 years. Oil is flirting with $40/bbl. You are destroyed.

And, your evidence is what for the cause being: "because the fraction of
current oil supply that can be extracted at such very low cost has been
declining"?

[snip of Roy's brazen attempt to deny that $15.25 per barrel is price data]

> >Neither mild, nor wild, inflation means "declining real prices".
>
> ??? Uh, it does when the nominal prices don't rise at least as fast
> as the inflation.

Nominal prices ARE the measure of inflation, idiot.

[snip]

> >Your story was:
> >
> >> ...for over 100 years up until the early 1970s, real oil
> >>>prices fell pretty consistently
> >
> >From 1958 to 1970 is TWELVE YEARS, Mensa Breath.
>
> You have simply taken that statement from a different context and
> falsely claimed I made it in this context. That sort of cheap,
> despicable deceit is a favored technique you use when you need to
> cover up one of your lies with another lie.

Yes, how unfair of me to actually use your own words in debating you.
Especially when they show you only off by 88 years out of 100.

[snip]

> >Second, the above, along with:
> >
> >> ><< Crises in Iran and Iraq
> >> ><< Events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price
> >increases
> >> >in 1979 and 1980. >>
> >
> > is a refutation of your claim that it was due "primarily" to "the
fraction
> >of current oil supply that can be extracted at very low cost has been
> >declining". YOUR SOURCE has destroyed that argument.
>
> No, lying filth, it simply places a different emphasis on the causes
> of the price increases...

Yeah, yeah...that's the ticket: "a different emphasis" sounds a lot better
than, "I'm toast".