Peak Oil and the end of civilization as we know it.

[Owledge]

@TheSongsofDistantEarth

When he says he thinks it is a scam, it means that he believes the thing was made up in order to make money off of it, not that it is made up because people make money off of it.

You said that was his whole reason for thinking it is untrue, so the logical fallacy is actually on your part.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

So peak oil and global warming are real and some people are making money off it. Sounds like just about everything else in the world.

 

He said "it sounds realistic but (not 'and'!) he heard it's a scam (not 'also a scam'). Semantics matter. I win. he he.

Edited February 5, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Owledge]

Now you're falling back even more into your habit of declaring yourself a 'winner'. The implications couldn't be more obvious, although it's also a habit of you to try and cloak it by saying it was meant humorous, but that would imply that you didn't intend to make a serious point in the first place.

 

So peak oil and global warming are real and some people are making money off it.

The first half not according to what Listener said.

 

He said "it sounds realistic but (not 'and'!) he heard it's a scam (not 'also a scam'). Semantics matter. I win. he he.

Yes, he said "but" because while he is inclined to believe things that sound realistic, the fact that he also heard it's a scam puts that into relation.

 

Take these examples for clarification:

1) I've heard JFK died of a stroke, but I've seen videos where he appears to be shot.

2) I've heard JFK died of a stroke, and I've also seen videos where he appears to be shot.

 

Seriously, who would use the second variant at all? But even if, both statements show an undecidedness, because otherwise the second one would be contradictory. And both statements don't have anything to do with uttering a belief about why he was shot or had a stroke.

 

If your sense of linguistic logic is so far off, misunderstandings and misconceptions are bound to happen again and again.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Hardyg

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Now you're falling back even more into your habit of declaring yourself a 'winner'. The implications couldn't be more obvious, although it's also a habit of you to try and cloak it by saying it was meant humorous, but that would imply that you didn't intend to make a serious point in the first place.

 

 

The first half not according to what Listener said.

 

 

Yes, he said "but" because while he is inclined to believe things that sound realistic, the fact that he also heard it's a scam puts that into relation.

 

Take these examples for clarification:

1) I've heard JFK died of a stroke, but I've seen videos where he appears to be shot.

2) I've heard JFK died of a stroke, and I've also seen videos where he appears to be shot.

 

Seriously, who would use the second variant at all? But even if, both statements show an undecidedness. And both statements don't have anything to do with uttering a belief about why he was shot or had a stroke.

 

If your sense of linguistic logic is so far off, misunderstandings and misconceptions are bound to happen again and again.

 

 

Yes, yes, you're right. By saying I am the WINNER, (it implies that you yourself, are the LOSER), since you stated in another thread that you can't be insulted anymore but that you try to figure out the reasons that people consider you (insert insult).

So, I am glad that we agree on something then!

Edited February 5, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Owledge]

Oh Songs... if you need something to jerk off, pictures of naked women will work much better for you than intellectual battles. You only get a bloody nose and then call yourself a clown.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Oh Songs... if you need something to jerk off, pictures of naked women will work much better for you than intellectual battles. You only get a bloody nose and then call yourself a clown.

 

Oh, Hardyg...your response shows a flicker of the faculty of humor...you're actually developing one!!!

 

 

 

He he...bloody nose...he hee!

Edited February 5, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[flyinghigh]

According to WikiLeaks released cables Saudi Arabia might have overstated its reserves by 40%/300bn barrels.

Are we much closer to Peak Oil than we thought?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/did-wikileaks-confirm-peak-oil-saudi-said-have-overstated-crude-oil-reserves-300-billion-bar

[Sunya]

According to WikiLeaks released cables Saudi Arabia might have overstated its reserves by 40%/300bn barrels.

Are we much closer to Peak Oil than we thought?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/did-wikileaks-confirm-peak-oil-saudi-said-have-overstated-crude-oil-reserves-300-billion-bar

 

Dude, I was just going to post this and was looking for this thread! I'll post it anyway.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/did-wikileaks-confirm-peak-oil-saudi-said-have-overstated-crude-oil-reserves-300-billion-bar

[Sahaj Nath]

[strawdog65]

I think that something we can all agree on is that the truth is

not being revealed and will not be revealed until it's too late.