To those outraged over the BP spill

[austin78704]

You're probably not gonna like this.

A lot of you seriously need a reality check. I can understand the anger and outrage over the spill, but there's a difference between productive outrage and the kind of blind rage and ignorant, foot-stomping tantrums the teabag crowd has honed into an art form.

I've seen it repeated dozens of times on multiple threads that BP is intentionally not shutting down the well because somehow they can make a profit by leaving it open. Others seem just white-hot pissed off that BP would dare to contain the spill rather than stop the flow because, you suppose, they want the oil. Well, run the numbers. Go find out how many barrels of oil they've recovered so far, and divide that number into the total cost of the $200,000,000 well plus the $800,000,000 rig that burned and sank plus the $75,000,000 they handed out to the states early-on plus the $65,000,000 the federal government is charging them for cleanup so far plus the costs of building the experimental equipment to date plus the daily operating cost of the ships, oil rigs, etc they've got on the scene now plus the wages of the cleanup workers plus the cost of the booms plus the inevitable fines and lawsuits plus everything I've left out. A barrel of oil sells for $70.93 right now. What's their net profit per barrel?

I also see a whole lot of "Why the hell aren't they doing XXXXXX?!?!?!?!?!" Well, go research your idea and see if you can figure it out. How many of you instant experts have even fixed a leaking faucet? That's no more than 80psi and in most cases it's a whole lot less. Typically a 3/4" or less pipe. Now scale it up to 12,000 psi and a 20" pipe and fix it with tweezers. Ever deal with "water hammer"? How many of you know the basic math to figure mud weight? You even know what it's for? How much pressure can the casing take? If you actually do drop a battleship full of cement on top of the well, how tight a seal do you expect to get? Rate that seal in PSI, and specify how much of a safety margin you allowed for.

As pissed as some here get at the creationist crowd and global warming deniers for not repecting the scientists and researchers enough to trust them, there sure does seem to be next to zero trust of people who drill wells for a living. How much of that bias is the product of your politics?

James Cameron is a fucking film director. Do you really need that explained to you?

The bullshit hyperbole about this killing the entire GoM does no one any good. In fact, after the GoM has not died, some people will turn your hyperbole around to "prove" all environmental concerns are bullshit, making it that much harder to push real reform. You worried about environmental impact, go look at what is actually happening and complain about THAT, because THAT is reality. Instead of falling into a pissing match about theory with people who usually can't even read, you can point to actual, for real, no bullshit environmental damage--with pictures! You should see it as a golden opportunity.

What, exactly, will nationalizing BP accomplish? If you think the lack of nationalization is causing some kind of problem, what is it, and how will it be solved? If you think nationalization will somehow open up new options that are currently unavailable, what are they, and how will they then come about?

I'm with you guys on stopping the dispersants--they're nothing more than pollution on top of pollution. Hooray for agreement!

You want to put your anger to productive use? Good! Glad to hear it. Here are some ways you can help:
--Go to the coast and volunteer. Help with the cleanup, or talk to the people and see what you can do in other ways. Just staying in the otherwise empty hotels down there will help.
--Call your congressperson. Especially if you've never called before. Especially especially if you have to figure out who your congressperson is before calling. Press for energy reform, mass transit, and anything else you can think of to reduce energy usage.
--Drive less. Turn off the AC. Ride a bike or a horse.
--Shut down the computer a little earlier and read a book. Instead of getting all worked up, watching Glen Beck's idiot circus, shut off the TV.
--Sleep when it's dark.
--Go yell at some dumbass blowhard Palin fans. Make them regret things they've said.
--Remind people that all of that oil would pollute just as badly if it had been collected normally, refined, and used. The spill is merely more visible pollution.

The worst enemy of any progress is and has always been laziness. Stop being lazy; instead of mindlessly repeating things said by people you've already decided you agree with, think critically about what they're saying, and refine what you say.

P.S. I'm well aware that some here will try to attack me personally. Go for it--my validity is independent of my popularity.

[dionysus]

1. good post. it's fine to be outraged, just keep a level head about it.

:thumbsup:

[rudy23]

15. You think this is a good post? We should keep a level head about the death and destruction?

Thanks for telling me how I'm allowed to feel about the destruction of my culture.

[dionysus]

20. you love to put words in my mouth. why a level head? because running around with your hair

on fire every single day makes people look crazy and irrational. and it solves nothing.

has this tragedy made you change the way you live your life in any way? or does posting on DU make one a hero?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

25. i'm dashed.

:shrug:

[rudy23]

96. What a smarmy question--I'm in southern Louisiana, pal! What do you think?

The NERVE!!!

[rudy23]

99. "has this tragedy made you change the way you live your life in any way?"

I still can't believe someone asked me this.

[laughingliberal]

100. Tone deafness isn't just for our elected leaders, it seems. nt

[HughMoran]

116. Unproductive outrage isn't either

(point missed, as expected)

[laughingliberal]

158. I was responding to a poster in the Gulf who was blithely asked if this tragedy has 'made him change

the way he lives.' Whether or not his outrage is productive, it is more than justified. I believe the point is the way he lives has been changed for him.

We will all be affected in some way by this but DUers who live on the Gulf, I believe, are entitled to our support right now.

[dionysus]

118. yes, has this tragedy made you change your lifestyle vis a vis using petroleum based products. i am

not asking you if the accident has impacted your life, i am asking if it will change the way you consume energy. will you be changing your lifestyle to use less petroleum based products? the crux of this whole disaster is that we use oil for pretty damn near everything, and to get away from that requires really big changes.

if you could calm down for a second maybe you would have understood my question.

i guess it's easier to get indignant and put words in my mouth.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

121. you can't believe someone asked you if you planned to change the way you consume energy?

seriously? i think you're proving the point about misdirected outrage.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

136. "obama apologist" really is all you have, isn't it? i'll have to presume you won't change

your energy comsumption at all. lashing out at people blindly on the internet will have to suffice huh?

i guess it's obama's fault we use plastic heavily in our society. and i suppose, teh DLC makes you use electricity as well.

and once more, no one is telling you how to feel.

[rudy23]

148. Take comfort that any post calling someone " apologist" is deleted, while you get to throw shit

all day long and see what sticks. I know how the game is played here. You're going to rile a bunch of Louisianians up, alert on their every counter-argument, and try to shut them up for good.

[dionysus]

152. i didn't alert on your post. you want to keep digging further? you don't have "arguments" or

"counter arguments". all you have is blind lashing out at whatever I say, and putting words i9n my mouth. but hey, if that floats your boat, have a ball with it.

:shrug:

[austin78704]

168. If it were up to me

None of the posts in this thread would have been deleted. I think it is useful to keep all sides of the, um, exchange available for all to see. Your posts that I have seen have consistently been excellent examples of unproductive and misdirected outrage that serves no good.

I tried to appeal to the mods, but that post was also deleted. That comment will likely get this post deleted as well.

[treestar]

So what good does an unlevel head do?

[rudy23]

97. Nothing, that's not what I was criticizing. That poster does not get to tell us how to feel.

That's what I was saying. The poster was sitting at a healthy distance from the problem, telling us down here how to feel.

[Skittles]

107. lots of that going around lately

[HughMoran]

117. So you're promoting unproductive outrage

that makes DUers look silly?

m-kay

[rudy23]

133. Stop this game. Just stop it. This is serious business to us. Stop using it to bait people. nt

[dionysus]

120. no one told you how to feel. i simply expressed my opinion.

:shrug:

[rudy23]

149. "just keep a level head about it" nt

[austin78704]

167. You can remain outraged and keep a level head at the same time.

Well, most people can, anyway. I would not presume to speak for other posters in particular.

[Forkboy]

2. This should be good.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Here

:popcorn: though the OP is correct... the level of magical thinking 'round these parts is down right scary.

[HughMoran]

45. Yep

It's infinitely more desirable to have the facts on your side, even if it's less emotionally satisfying.

[obxhead]

32. yeah it should be.

Here I'll even share.

[Capitalocracy]

3. Here's something productive you can do

Just to make sure our interests are represented during this process

BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison

[rzemanfl]

4. Here's where you lost me:

"--Remind people that all of that oil would pollute just as badly if it had been collected normally, refined, and used. The spill is merely more visible pollution."

Tell that to a dolphin, sea turtle or pelican.

[City Lights]

17. He lost me at "spill." nt

[rzemanfl]

24. True, they have won the framing battle on that one, I guess, but

you're right.

[Incitatus]

41. And the thousands of people whose livelihoods are ruined.

And the thousands of people who will get sick from the cleanup.

[austin78704]

65. Good point.

Here's my thinking on it: oil, when refined goes into a few different streams. Fuel, plastics and synthetics, lube, roads.

Fossil fuel use is contributing to global warming. Although I seriously doubt the projections that it will end all life on Earth, it's undeniable that it will be disruptive. Among other things, it'll move some breeding and feeding areas and possibly cause mass deaths in the process. Including dolphins, turtles, and pelicans.

Plastics often reenter the environment as litter. There is debate over what happens then, but it does enter the environment. I've seen plenty of pictures of sea life killed by the plastic waste dumped in the oceans.

Lube, even with oil reclamation, will all eventually go into the environment or get burned as secondary fuel. We opened a fresh 70lbs barrel of grease at work today. All of the grease will eventually wind up discarded in some way.

Road surfaces are highly recyclable, but not 100%. It will take many iterations, but the road surface will also eventually enter the environment. Also, some roads are abandoned without recycling. I don't know of anyone using anything other than fossil fuel sources for road surface recycling. Even if they are out there, it's still one more thing consuming FFs.

Now, you can certainly draw a distinction in rates--this oil spill (geyser for those unhappy with the word spill) is definitely pushing all of this into the environment much more quickly and in higher concentrations than typical. That will make a difference, but I have no idea how much or how to determine it. In my opinion, regardless of what the difference is, that difference is moot because pollution is pollution.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

95. You simply need to concede the point here.

You're doing the tenor of your entire post a disservice by not retracting this one simple point. The damage done because of the concentration here is undeniable and far exceeds the diluted damage done with the petrol byproducts. I suppose I need clear support for my assertion, but I'm thinking not. I'm thinking that the diluted millions of barrels of petrol will do less damage than these concentrated millions of barrels of petrol. You'd do yourself a great service and service to this thread if you conceded the point.

But maybe you have numbers to counteract my intuition here. I think the original respondent's point stands. Not as many birds and fish and vegetation die directly when the pollutants are dispersed.

And you never responded to my point below about your flawed rhetoric. I will hold you to higher standards because you seem to have a rational head on your shoulders.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

162. "In my opinion, regardless of what the difference is . . .

"In my opinion, regardless of what the difference is, that difference is moot because pollution is pollution."

That may be your opinion, but it's not a very well thought-out one. As you know, the environment can help disperse pollutants naturally, and surrounding ecosystems will actually become acclimated to new low levels of pollutants (I'm not saying that there isn't ANY harm and that we need not worry about pollution). There will not be a mass kill like we will see from the geyser; dolphins won't literally explode from oil intake from the wash-off from asphalt. It's like saying, "Well, I know that this month I'm going to drink 5 gallons of gin, so it will be all the same to my liver if I just drink those 5 gallons tonight."

Why can't you simply admit that you're wrong here. I find it rather surprising given your rational disposition. And you have yet to concede my point that your original post is rhetorically flawed or at least defend the rhetoric employed.

[austin78704]

169. Well, I don't really think I'm wrong

It kind of boils down to how you define pollution, I guess. It can get fuzzy very quickly.

I see oil and all oil products as pollution because I see all of them capable of damage in the environment and we're placing oil into the environment at such high rates we long ago surpassed the point at which nature can effectively take care of it. (I should clarify: no matter what kind of damage we do, nature can on some level effectively take care of it, but that may come in the form of making life much more difficult for human beings.) Sure, you might not see a dead dolphin wash up on a beach, but you may very well kill off just as many, or shorten the average life span, or cause an increase in morbidity, etc.

The only difference I see is in rate. I suppose you could try to argue whether the total damage each way is comparable, but I won't get into that--too much guesswork to the point you can't get anywhere.

I may very well be wrong, in which case you have critically looked at what I've said and could then choose not to repeat it.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

174. Wow, you really won't concede a simple point.

It doesn't mean that the rest of your post isn't spot-on. It just means that this one little bullet point wasn't well-conceived. But you can't admit it. Look at your respons ehere compared to all of your other posts. You look like the people you were complaining of. Welcome to DU. I had hope for you.

[austin78704]

179. That seems to say you expected perfection

Or close to it.

You agree with all I said except one minor point; I'd consider that rather successful.

[Zenlitened]

156. Haven't you heard? New law requires dolphins, sea turtles and pelicans...

... to come with factory-installed catalytic converters beginning in model year 2013.

:crazy:

Seriously, the OP's statement is so far from the truth, it's hard to know where to begin a rebuttal.

But maybe that's the point?

:shrug:

[LeftyFingerPop]

5. Thanks for the post. I won't be mad anymore.

[Skittles]

108. LFP

sometimes the fewer your words, the more profound :)

[spanone]

6. 'you talkin' to me?'

[rzemanfl]

7. I forgot to check your profile before I responded. Austin, Texas.

Tex, when you fish do you cast or just drag the lure behind the boat?

[Arctic Dave]

8. I do work in the oilfields and BP can go fuck itself.

If BP didn't fuck the dog cutting corners and did things properly, this would not have happened. As for volunteering to clean up this mess, FUCK THAT. Why should anyone risk their health and work for free for a corporation that racks up BILLIONS of dollars in profit a quarter.

If this clusterfuck sinks BP, I couldn't be happier.

[laughingliberal]

101. +10,000 nt

[HughMoran]

115. + 1 brazillion

so there - :P

[SidDithers]

10. This is a great freakin' post...

Thank you so much for writing it.

:applause:

Sid

[cwydro]

19. Sure as fuck hope this is sarcasm.

[HughMoran]

46. No, this is one of the best posts on this topic I've seen

It's a simple fact that people are making shit up and calling it fact. It's not productive and eviscerates our credibility.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

59. Personal attacks won't compensate for your lack of a valid retort

:shrug:

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drm604]

11. James Cameron

Yes, James Cameron is a film director and no, I don't think anyone here needs that explained to them.

What I don't understand is why you think he has anything to do with this. :crazy:

[Feron]

31. Cameron is butthurt because he can't put his cameras down there.

Even though there are at least a dozen ROVs down there and during the RITT insertion two collided into each other.

They don't want more underwater vehicles down there because it's already crowded. A fact lost on Cameron.

[drm604]

37. So Cameron's made some public remarks about this?

I wasn't aware of that. Have people on DU been going on about him?

[SidDithers]

75. Yes, there are posters who think that BP's or the government's refusal of Cameron's offer...

is evidence of, well, something.

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Cameron correctly suggested that we should take our own

damn look at what is going on, rather than take BP's word and crappy images. Some people are invested in the idea that BP should control the flow of information, unlike the flow of oil. Cameron is a patent holding designer of deep sea, remote camera equipment, among other things. So it is absurd to attack his credibility on the subject, the experts sure don't.
It is hard for some people to get their minds around this. Cameron built a robot camera, went to the Titanic wreck (actual deep, not BP deep) deployed the deeps sea robo cameras of his own design, sent them into the wreck, down the halls and into Staterooms. He also retrieved both cameras from the wreck, that is they deployed, worked, and returned to work again. You know, stuff millions of Americans do every day.

[laughingliberal]

105. +1 nt

[ljm2002]

130. Yeah, but James Cameron is a fucking film director...

...Do you really need that explained to you?

:sarcasm:

[ShamelessHussy]

12. thats like MOST of the planet...

the rest are on the side of COVERING it up.

you were saying...

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[me b zola]

53. Too bad your post was removed, because I recommend

Your profile says you're from the Keys. I am a diver who has spent a lifetime dreaming of diving the Keys and the Caribbean. I am at such a loss for the senseless destruction that is occurring. I am so sorry for those of you who live there. Please post pics to remind us of what we are losing.

[cwydro]

56. Thank you.

I was not surprised it was deleted. I assumed the poster was Tony himself and spoke to him accordingly.

Yes, I am in the Keys and upset, worried, outraged, sad...beyond words. We all are and I know it is not just us that live here. The great majority of DUers are as upset as anyone who lives on the Gulf. But damn, this has brought out the idiots.

Not usually one for personal attacks, but this egregious and unforgiveable attack on Mother Nature has brought out the worst in me.

Not going to respond anymore in this thread; no doubt this is what this, um, "person", wants.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Texasgal]

28. 78704 apartment cheap?

LOL!!!

[austin78704]

36. You pay my rent? n/t

[Texasgal]

39. Well, let's see..

I am a native Austinite. I know 78704 quite well. What's cheap to you?

[austin78704]

47. My rent. n/t

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[austin78704]

73. Let me see if I fully understand

You replied to absolutely nothing in my original post, but because I will not tell you my rent, it's all invalid?

That makes no sense.

P.S. I hate coffee.

[Skittles]

109. I lived cheap in 78704 for 17 years

[me b zola]

63. "food stamper"?

Wow. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[dionysus]

64. he said foot stamper...

:shrug:

[me b zola]

82. Then it looks like I get the thumbs down

...for misreading a post and responding to my misinterpretation. Thank you for the clarification.

[Texasgal]

26. LOVE! LOVE THIS POST!

Thank you!

78748- signing in.

[HughMoran]

66. But it was laced with personal attacks and class-warfare type insults

...and was deleted for such.

You consider this to be a valid form of rebuttal?

[Texasgal]

69. Sorry, the poster has a point

too bad it was deleted.

[HughMoran]

71. You just personally attacked the poster as well

Why can't you make an argument that doesn't involve trying to discredit the poster as being an "elitist"?

Is this how we make reasoned arguments in response to the O/Ps well written post?

[Texasgal]

139. The argument loses all credibility

when the finger wagging started in the first paragraph. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

140. I thought it was appropriate

The ridiculousness of much of the outrage on this issue is not productive. Credibility of argument is important, lest people simply stop reading and roll their eyes.

[Texasgal]

144. You have your opinion..

I see nothing productive about posting condescending and finger wagging screeds on DU either. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

145. ...unless you agree with them, then you heartily K&R them

It's one of those "shoe on the other foot" situations...

:think:

[Texasgal]

146. I do not K&R when a post

tells me how I am supposed to react/feel about something.

It's not that disagree with the post in itself, I just don't appreciate the holier than thou BS. I have my own thoughts on this matter and I am highly capable of thinking/reacting. I don't need to have anyone come and finger wag to me... thats' really my whole point.

[HughMoran]

147. Never mind

Have a nice day :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

110. class-warfare type insults? are those verboten?

[HughMoran]

113. Not necessarily

But that was the gist of her argument - there was no attempt at countering the points made in the O/P.

[GCP]

18. Excellent post

Recommended.

[BeFree]

21. Validity?

Not much of that, there.

If this situation is what you call progress, and keeping the Gulf clean is being lazy....

Quote: "The worst enemy of any progress is and has always been laziness. Stop being lazy; instead of mindlessly repeating things said by people you've already decided you agree with, think critically about what they're saying, and refine what you say."

At present, there is entrained, in the deep waters of the Gulf, probably 40 million gallons of oil and 1 million gallons of Corexit. If you think that will not kill the life in the Gulf, then you haven't thought this through and you are no better than what you are railing against. In fact, worse.

And it ain't done adding oil to the Gulf. So you have jumped to a conclusion and rode the wave of dismissal that only conforms to BP's first, and now discredited statements about their major screwup, er, 'progress'.

[austin78704]

29. I did not call the current situation progress.

I also did not say keeping the gulf clean is lazy.

The thrust of my post was that the bullshit accomplishes nothing. I even went on to suggest that some physically go to the gulf to help clean, though the reference to laziness was more directed at mental laziness.

I also never suggested that the oil in the gulf will not kill anything.

Your bullshit attempt at misrepresenting my post accomplishes nothing. The readers who liked my post will dislike yours, and the readers who disliked my post will like yours, but you will change nobody's mind. Why even bother with it, then?

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

74. So

You're off to the gulf then?

Or are you not too worried?

Everything is gonna be fine? The gulf is gonna bounce back?

See, those are questions meant to get you to explain your position further.
Like the ones I asked above. And you fly off the handle and call it a "bullshit attempt"?

Really, I don't know why I bother.

[jaxx]

23. Thanks.

That needed to be said.

[AllentownJake]

27. Human Beings rarely prepare for things they think won't happen

When you test the limits of human engineering, you should prepare for things you don't think will happen.

[William Z. Foster]

30. nationalizing

The federal government works for the public to protect the public interest.

BP works for Wall Street to protect the shareholders' interests.

The federal government can an should protect the public interest, BP cannot and will not. Any other argument is an argument for privatization, and if that argument was ever inappropriate it would be regarding the catastrophe in the Gulf. Only the federal government has the power, authority resources and mandate to protect public welfare - first last and always.

Why is this so difficult for Democrats (!!!) to understand? This is a matter of the fundamental principles of government - the very role and purpose of government - let alone the principles and ideals that the Democratic party has always stood or.

The rest of your post is a dishonest and malicious attack on any and all people who disagree with you about this, and it is shameful. It is condescending and insulting and completely misrepresents the critics and trivializes their comments. It is a call for people to ignore people holding a certain point of view you wish to suppress - not based on the validity of their argument, but rather based on your pejorative characterization of their imagined emotional state.

All decent and thinking people should utterly reject your appeal.

[austin78704]

33. You said nothing

I see a pile of generalities there, but just what do you expect to change once BP gets nationalized? Action-wise. It's a serious question and I'd like a serious answer.

You really think my post is dishonest? Poke some holes in it. From your tone I gather you think it's REALLY dishonest, so it should be relatively easy to poke holes in it.

Hell, I'd agree with the basic idea that government is for the population at large and corporations are for select cliques, but you haven't shown that it is influencing events at the well right now.

OK, let's assume that BP was just nationalized five minutes ago, what are you expecting to see next?

[William Z. Foster]

42. I made the case

I think I made the case as effectively as it can be made. The readers can now decide.

[HughMoran]

51. No you didn't

Your post said nothing that hasn't been said and debunked already.

[William Z. Foster]

54. understood

You disagree with what I have to say about the proper role of government. That is not "debunking," it is disagreeing. I do not ever expect to convince you, nor do I care about that. I think the readers deserve clarity and honesty, and all I am doing is attempting to draw you out and have you state your case as clearly and persuasively as you possibly can. That way the readers can then know what the issues are and what is at stake, and make up their own minds. That has been working well so far, and I have no complaints. So please continue to give it your best shot, as will I. Thanks.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

58. I think the problem is that you didn't offer an argument, William Z. Foster.

You made an assertion that we should nationalize (and I am sympathetic to this view). But the OP wants specifics. You really didn't touch his argument, and he gave you a chance to offer up specifics. The issue is what defines "the proper role of government." If you could define that for the OP and demonstrate that the feds. could help the situation and not make it worse (not simply by virtue of the fact that the gov. can't do anything right, but that they may not have training, equipment, etc. for this stuff; again, it could make it worse), I'm sure he'd concede your point. But he's asking for details, not simply the big, theoretical picture.

[William Z. Foster]

68. yes I did

I gave specifics. The proper role of the government in this case is to take command and control and all decision-making away from BP and into the hands of the federal government.

If you mean technical specifics, that is an absurd question. The government brings in the people to put together the technical specifics. There is no reason to think that the government would have any less access to anything that BP has access to. In fact, the government has more power and authority and resources. Power and authority and resources, and a commitment to protect public interest are the "specifics."

Here is an example of this same debate from another time involving another project, and this and a little imagination may satisfy people hunger for "specifics."

During the 1920s and the Great Depression years, Americans began to support the idea of public ownership of utilities, particularly hydroelectric power facilities. The concept of government-owned generation facilities selling to publicly owned distribution utilities was controversial and remains so today.

Many believed privately owned power companies were charging too much for power, did not employ fair operating practices and were subject to abuse by their owners (utility holding companies), at the expense of consumers. During his presidential campaign, Roosevelt claimed that private utilities had "selfish purposes" and said, "Never shall the federal government part with its sovereignty or with its control of its power resources while I'm president of the United States." By forming utility holding companies, the private sector controlled 94 percent of generation by 1921, essentially unregulated. (This gave rise to Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA)). Many private companies in the Tennessee Valley were bought by the federal government. Others shut down, unable to compete with the TVA. Government regulations were also passed to prevent competition with TVA.

On the other hand, there were economic libertarians who believed the government should not participate in the electricity generation business, fearing government ownership would lead to the misuse of hydroelectric sites. TVA was one of the first federal hydropower agencies, and today most of the nation's major hydropower systems are federally managed. Other attempts to create TVA-like regional agencies have failed, such as a proposed Columbia Valley Authority for the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest.

Regional power consumers may benefit from lower-cost electricity supplied from TVA's network of 29 power-producing hydropower facilities. Supporters of TVA, though, note that the agency's management of the Tennessee River system without appropriated federal funding saves federal taxpayers millions of dollars annually. Opponents, such as Dean Russell in The TVA Idea, in addition to condemning the project as being socialist, argued that TVA created a "hidden loss" by preventing the creation of "factories and jobs that would have come into existence if the government had allowed the taxpayers to spend their money as they wished." Defenders note that TVA is overwhelmingly popular in Tennessee among conservatives and liberals alike, as Barry Goldwater discovered in 1964, when he proposed selling the agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

I am not saying that the TVA is "exactly like" the Gulf catastrophe - anticipating the "but that was different!" argument. But this will give people a sense for how the federal government can assume control and ownership over a project, and also give them an idea of what the debate pro and con about this idea is.

Would one need to know technical "specifics" about how to build a dam in order to support the project being public rather than private? Of course not.

[austin78704]

78. I don't need technical specifics.

You say BP needs to be nationalized. Needs to be. As if something is wrong now, that will not be wrong after nationalization. What I'm asking is, what is that something that you see as wrong? What is the problem that needs to get solved by way of nationalization?

[William Z. Foster]

79. ok

What do you need?

I did not say that BP needs to be nationalized.

[austin78704]

83. Then why are you discussing nationalization?

And I just told you want I needed.

[William Z. Foster]

86. what I said

I said that the control and command of the response needs to be in government hands. I have not ever mentioned nationalizing the company.

[William Z. Foster]

90. I will try again

You ask "what do you expect to change once BP gets nationalized? Action-wise. It's a serious question and I'd like a serious answer."

I am not calling for BP to be nationalized and have been very careful at all times to be very clear about that.

However, you may wish to know what would change were the federal government in control of the response to the catastrophe rather than leaving BP in charge.

The White House would be making decisions rather than the BP CEO and his team.

That is the main change, the most important change. I am not sure what else you are looking for, nor do I understand why you fail to see the advantages in that. The government answers to the public. The CEO of BP does not. Again, that seems clear to me, and also to make a big difference and to be an improvement.

Now, as to what then happens - perhaps the same exact things, in the exact same ways. But, perhaps not, most likely not. The federal government has the power and authority and resources and commitment to public welfare that BP does not have, and cannot have. It is highly likely - almost a certainty - that this will lad to resources, expertise and ideas being brought to bear on the problem that would otherwise not be. Again, I don't see how that is not clear and specific, and how it would not be seen as an improvement or is difficult to understand.

[austin78704]

92. Well, I believe that's already the case

As I understand it, the federal government has to OK everything BP does WRT the blowout prior to any action.

Perhaps you are not calling for nationalization of BP, but I have seen others make that statement.

[William Z. Foster]

93. ah, ok

It is hard to tell.

Yes, the feds are in some ways "looking over BP's shoulder." But the BP execs are doing the planning and decision making. The feds than "sign off" on that, or at least on what BP chooses to tell them. I want all of the people involved reporting to the feds, not to BP execs. That is the difference.

[Arctic Dave]

135. Do you believe nothing is wrong at BP?

How about gross misconduct leading to several deaths and spills in the last couple of years. BP has repeatedly lied to regulators about maintenance and safety issues. If BP can't be trusted to tell the truth to the Federal Government then it has every right to either take it over or dismantel it all together.

By the way, I helped clean up the largest oil spill BP caused through negligence on the North Slope. It was only one of several they had in that period.

[austin78704]

170. Nope.

I'm aware of many problems within BP, and I'm sure there are a hundred times as many at least.

But I wanted to know: out of those problems, which ones could be solved by the nationalization some posters have called for in other threads. I don't know of any.

[William Z. Foster]

173. turn that around

What problems can be solved through private control of the response that could not be solved with public control?

There is only one "problem" that I can think of that would be better handled privately - the interests of the shareholders.

So, other than that, which problems - of the many of which you are aware - could not be handled by a public emergency response effort and that could be handled by a privatized emergency response effort?

[Arctic Dave]

176. Easy. Oversight. It is that simple.

If they can't do what is right, then the government or someone who can, should.

[dionysus]

60. you made vague statements, as you always do.

[William Z. Foster]

72. you may disagree with my statements

But these can hardly be called "vague."

"The federal government works for the public to protect the public interest."

"BP works for Wall Street to protect the shareholders' interests."

"The federal government can an should protect the public interest, BP cannot and will not. Any other argument is an argument for privatization, and if that argument was ever inappropriate it would be regarding the catastrophe in the Gulf. Only the federal government has the power, authority resources and mandate to protect public welfare - first last and always."

Had I said, as many here are:

"It is kinda sorta federalized."

"BP is doing the best they can."

"We just have to accept it."

"BP must have the same interests as we do."

THAT would be making vague statements.

[laughingliberal]

102. +1 nt

[William Z. Foster]

85. on the misrepresentations

Besides making a simple and clear call for nationalizing the response to the catastrophe, and explaining why that should be done, I also complained about the way you were characterizing those who did not agree with you. Here are examples:

A lot of you seriously need a reality check. I can understand the anger and outrage over the spill, but there's a difference between productive outrage and the kind of blind rage and ignorant, foot-stomping tantrums the teabag crowd has honed into an art form.

How many of you instant experts have even fixed a leaking faucet?

As pissed as some here get at the creationist crowd and global warming deniers for not respecting the scientists and researchers enough to trust them, there sure does seem to be next to zero trust of people who drill wells for a living. How much of that bias is the product of your politics?

What, exactly, will nationalizing BP accomplish? If you think the lack of nationalization is causing some kind of problem, what is it, and how will it be solved? If you think nationalization will somehow open up new options that are currently unavailable, what are they, and how will they then come about?

You want to put your anger to productive use?

The worst enemy of any progress is and has always been laziness. Stop being lazy; instead of mindlessly repeating things said by people you've already decided you agree with, think critically about what they're saying, and refine what you say.

You say that critics are merely angry, and should vent their anger in some other way. That is false. People may be angry, but that does not invalidate what they are saying.

You say that critics are out of touch with reality. That is false, and you make no attempt to support that smear.

You compare critics of leaving this response in BP's hands to the creationist crowd and global warming deniers, because they do not trust the experts at well drilling. This is a false charge. No one said replace the experts, they said replace the BP executives. The experts will still be there under federal authority. Comparing critics to the creationist crowd and global warming deniers i sim0pokly a dishonest way to smear them.

You claim that people need some sort of mechanical ability or technical expertise in order to be able to make valid criticism of the way the response is being handled. That is false. People's lack of ability, or imagined lack of ability, does not invalidate what they say about the politics of this issue.

You claim that people are calling for the nationalization of BP, rather than the nationalization of the response and demand that they justify that with specifics or else their argument is invalid. This is false, another draw man argument and another dishonest attempt to discredit those who disagree with you. People are arguing for the feds to be in charge rather than the BP execs for the very same reason they support public education, the very same reason they object to federal agencies being staffed by industry insiders, the very same reason they object to privatized prisons and privatized military units, the exact same reason they support public control over all things affecting public welfare rather than leaving those things in private hands.

If you are arguing for privatization at all times, rather than public control, you should say so. If you are arguing for privatization in this one particular case, then the burden is on you to explain why. No expertise, personnel or resources are available to BP that would not also be available to the federal government. The difference is the will - the federal government is charged with protecting the public interest, BP is charged with protecting the shareholdres' interests. Do you deny that? Would you claim that this does not matter? Please be clear.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zenlitened]

157. Excellent post. - n/t

[Feron]

34. Demand Louisiana get 50% of our oil royalties....

when you contact your Congresscritter.

Other energy producing states get that amount ,but La. only gets like 37%.

Otherwise good post.

[Individualist]

35. BP rawks!

""

[dionysus]

62. he didn't even imply that. did you read the post?

[HughMoran]

76. This 2 post exchange is a microcosm of the point this thread is trying to make

:rofl:

Very good!

[Individualist]

80. So ignored said something that amused you?

How droll.

[Unvanguard]

40. THIS. n/t

[HughMoran]

43. Excellent post

It's clear that the people jumping up and down in an emotional rage can't hear you over the "LA!! LA!!! LA!!" they are screaming, but tech-pros like myself know that what you are stating here is 100% accurate.

The only valid argument I've heard to date was that they should stop using dispersant and let the oil surface so it will be easier to skim. OTOH, the plume phenomenon may still exist after dispersants use is ceased (even the experts don't know) and this would sort of leave us in the same place we are now, albeit without the potential effects of the dispersant on sea life.

The fact that people are emotionally unreccing a post that is 100% accurate and can't be refuted should make you pleased - you've hit the target on this post. I don't care who you are or what your motivation is - facts are facts. Kudos.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

44. It seems that no one actually responds directly to the points you're making.

Only one post points out the pretty shallow thinking on your part (post #4): "Here's where you lost me."
"--Remind people that all of that oil would pollute just as badly if it had been collected normally, refined, and used. The spill is merely more visible pollution."

Tell that to a dolphin, sea turtle or pelican."
***That's not simply an emotional, fist-pounding response. I think you have to concede the point or refine your original statement.

The post that called for serious nationalization fizzled out quickly enough when you asked for specifics.

If you were to rewrite your post--you know, refine what you say--rhetorically speaking, you should probably edit the "advice" section. It's condescending (people here know this stuff and most practice many of the items on your list; this is probably why they feel so invested in the Gulf and in the environment in general and are angry). Just stick with the logical, rational points you're making.

[undeterred]

48. "James Cameron is a fucking film director. Do you really need that explained to you?"

Yeah, explain that please.

[Bluebear]

50. --

:spray:

[HughMoran]

52. Got no arguments

taunt.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

55. let's get us to the fainting couch, the OP cursed!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jp11]

84. Well said, you pleasantly surprised me.

[lonestarnot]

87. 6 Billion annual profit is enough to entice underreporting of gusher blow in effort

to hide damages. I couldn't care less how much it costs them. What is the price of an ocean and all the wildlife contained therein on your pricelist? BP should never be allowed to do business in the United States again, no matter the consequences to Americans w/o BP, economically, convenience, production of anything that involves oil.



Yes zero trust of that depth of drilling into the seabed from any fucking driller.


If we have to go back to cavemen days so be it.

[Hannah Bell]

111. $26 billion last year.

[Quantess]

88. This is a pretty silly rant.

I am outraged over the oil disaster, outraged at BP, and nothing in your OP even registers as a reason to feel less angry.

While you're at it, how about telling everyone "this isn't the 60s anymore?" as though that were a snappy zinger. :eyes:

[austin78704]

89. I don't think anyone should be less outraged

I only want people to be more productive with their outrage.

(edit: typo)

[Quantess]

91. Fair enough.

I did appreciate that part of your OP.

[Are_grits_groceries]

98. "there sure does seem to be next to zero trust of people who drill wells for a living"

That is based on the continued disregard for safety regulations and the many problems they have had with their operations and specifically on that well. Despite the objections of those hands with experience who were concerned over the readings before it blew, the BP person in charge ordered them to continue. If those with experience are going to be overruled, then they certainly aren't using it.

I believe in this type of situation that you should ask a variety of people with experience in drilling or related areas for ideas. They are drawn up into a tightly knit group who are following the same set of ideas with variations. This is and unprecedented situation and that calls for thinking out of the box.

Here is what happened to Dr.Stephen Chu:
"Obama has also called in some of the many scientists on the federal payroll, led by Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. Chu at one point pushed the unusual idea of using gamma rays to peer into the blowout preventer to determine if its valves were closed, a technique he experimented with in graduate school while studying radioactive decay.

The suggestion at first elicited snickering and "Incredible Hulk" jokes. Then they tried it, and it worked. "They weren't hot on his ideas," a senior White House official said of BP's initial reaction to Chu's suggestions. "Now they are."

Here is part of an interview with him:
"How is it that you know enough about gamma rays and oil spill technology to be helpful? I wasn't aware that that was an area you'd worked in before you were secretary?

Oil spills were not something I've worked on, but I do know about gamma rays."
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/05/exclusive-how-steven-chu-used-gamma-rays-to-save-the-planet/56685/

You do not have to have expertise that is specifically in a certain field. Dr. Chu had an idea that wasn't out of a regular PEng text or experience. If he had not been in the position he is in, I doubt if that idea would have made it through the door. People in any situation can be so focused on using what they know that they will not look beyond that to other people who have a different take. This is true of a lot of groups and not just what is happening now.

As far as the impact on GoM is concerned, your assertion that people should go look at what is there because that is reality is not going to be a true picture. There is a great deal going on beneath the surface and nobody is sure of what the oil that can't be seen will do. The amount of oil already released has already had an impact. If that well keeps pouring oil into GoM, the situation is not going to get better. That is magical thinking.

As far as the money being used, BP made a profit last quarter alone of 6 billion dollars. They are the 4th biggest corporation in the world with revenue in the trillions. They have paid 65M in claims that have been processed so they say. In actuality, they are making claimants go through a great deal of paperwork just to get the money. It hasn't all been given out by a long shot. They aren't using anywhere near the amount of money they could to actually help the people on the Gulf coast.

This is what has happened to their highly touted program to hire boats for the cleanup:
<snip>
Specifically, a large number of the 1,900 contracts BP has issued across the Gulf have gone to the owners of pleasure boats: doctors, lawyers, and the like, who use their vessels for Saturday fishing trips or family outings, rather than the decimated commercial fishermen.

"We have these weekend warriors taking away jobs from those who fish for a living," says Biloxi boat captain Tom Becker, an officer of the National Association of the Charterboat Operators, who estimates that as much as 90 percent of the BP contracts in his Mississippi harbor had gone to pleasure boats. "Every day I see the boat trailers fill the parking lot as the pleasure boats get their assignments for day while the commercial fleet sits idle. This is like stealing. These jokers are taking money away from those who are trying to feed their families."
<snip>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-03/gulf-oil-spill-bp-pleasure-boat-scandal/

The government says they are going to insist that BP pay for all of the cleanup. I'll wait and see before I believe it. They don't have the money in hand. They are counting on BP's assurances. In addition, a lot of the claims and lawsuits will have to go through the court system. It took 20 years to get the claims for the Valdez spill to be settled. I doubt if BP is going to set a new moral course for all to follow. If they do, I will apologize.

Everything you have recommended that people do is avoiding demanding that any direct action be taken against BP. You have said to call our representatives in Congress. That will really help people right now. Changes do need to be made in policies to say the least, but that avoids the question of providing for the immediate needs.

I won't even go into the pitiful efforts they have made to cleanup the spill or to be ready for it in any way along the coasts. they have avoided using booms in any meaningful way. Here is an idea of what should be done:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/11/865387/-Fishgrease:-DKos-Booming-School

You accuse others of being angry at the wrong things. Your post in and of itself is a diatribe against those that you don't agree with.

"The worst enemy of any progress is and has always been laziness. Stop being lazy; instead of mindlessly repeating things said by people you've already decided you agree with, think critically about what they're saying, and refine what you say.'

You don't know what people have read nor how they have processed it. If someone agrees with an idea, that doesn't mean they had already decided to approve of it. It isn't mindless or lazy just because it doesn't agree with your point of view.

The worst enemy of progress can be a refusal to consider different ideas and new ways of operating. It is the height of laziness not to work to reach beyond your set of ideas. That is a rigidity in thinking that doesn't lead to many newer paths and progress.

Your technical points are well taken. There are many more specific problems that have to be dealt with at that level. That isn't the focus of the complaints. I don't think it will be easy to fix by a long shot. The actual capping isn't the only source of complaints.

I don't know you or what your job is. I won't speculate on whether I should trust you or not. A lot of people in the industry are trustworthy. it is those leading the companies and making the decisions who have shown to be the most suspect. They are the ones who need to do a lot more before they get any trust from people.

I'm sure what I have posted won't satisfy you or make you happy either. You are chalking up every criticism I have to my politics. A lot of what I have to say is grounded in common sense and reading a lot of sources.

[laughingliberal]

104. Brilliant post! Bravo! nt

:applause:

[Name removed]

114. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

122. Good post. I was going to just advise the OP of my unrec for patronizing lamitude

and that I wasn't going to bother with another lengthy post to be ignored or only to have a word choice parsed and debated in order to avoid the larger set of points.

Plus, the truth is more people need to be a lot more pissed and upset by this debacle rather than less. Everybody does not need to chill the fuck out. Not at all. I'd say the national outrage is quite underwhelming and the societal urgency to even start to change directions is dangerously low rather than overwrought into panic.

[HughMoran]

125. So the outrage is properly placed in most cases?

I say no and I find that when people are outraged but don't know what they talking about, people STOP LISTENING TO YOU!

[TheKentuckian]

134. Bullshit people still listen to the Republicans and they never know what they are talking about

I don't know if there is any evidence that the truth is generally more relevant than misinformation in this society. I'm not promoting falsehoods just pointing out that your thinking isn't especially meaningful in context.

Hell, look at yourself, no matter how much BP lies you'll listen to the next one they roll out for you. If anybody knows much they get little to no airplay.

[HughMoran]

138. Facts do matter. And attacking me personally says more about you than it says about me

:think:

[TheKentuckian]

141. pretty thin skin to think of that post as a personal attack

It's not my fault you still see BP as experts or take their lies with more than a grain of salt.

Also, what possible indication have I ever given that I care what anyone thinks of me, I don't dp perception management but I do get to say I told you so all too much.

Facts do matter because truth matters but not so much to perceptions or who gets broadly listened to.

[HughMoran]

142. More gobbledygook

and trying to tie me to BP as a personal attack, as if you know anything about oil drilling.

It's tried and true, and as lame as it ever was.

[austin78704]

171. I never suggested that people be less outraged.

Where in my OP did I tell anyone to be less angry? I certainly didn't mean to come off that way.

You let me know, and I'll avoid that mistake in the future.

[austin78704]

166. That's actually a constructive post

To the drillers disregarding safety regulations. There is no doubt that safety regulations and rules and established procedures were ignored. Had they adhered to them, the tragedy would have in all likelihood been prevented and we'd all be talking about something else. But consider where most of those rules and procedures come from: the drillers. I only point that out because I want to remind everyone that the people out there are not a homogeneous group. I had the fortune of working a job that placed me with several oil services companies as sort of a temp. "Temp" being weeks or months at a time. The staggering majority of people I worked with were honest, worked hard, and looked out for each other. I personally get angry when I see the sweeping generalizations that accuse all of the people working for oil companies of being complicit in this particular fuck-up. That is what inspired that particular comment.

I do not understand why you felt the story about Chu was relevant. Could you explain that further?

My mention of money was only to counter the notion that BP is turning a profit, or has some kind of profit motive to not shut down the well. That is all. For the most part I agree with your sentiments that BP is mismanaging the cleanup and being stingy with payments. That would also be in line with my experience around oil field companies.

I did not accuse anyone of being angry at "the wrong things." I accused some posters around here of promulgating bullshit. I believe a good deal of it is simply their anger getting the best of them. But regardless of the inspiration, bullshit is bullshit and does no one any good. Never has, never will, no matter how righteous the maker might feel at the time.

In fact, if history is any indicator, the worst bullshitters are also the most righteous.

You are correct, I do not know what people have read or how they have processed it, but I am capable of spotting patterns of behavior. When I see the same outrageous, baseless statements again and again from multiple posters and in multiple threads, it's clear what is occurring: it's the bandwagon effect. There's a word for it because it's a well-known pattern. People claiming BP is profiting from this disaster are not expressing an opinion I disagree with--they're saying something that is mathematiclally impossible and they'd be able to figure that out for themselves if they'd simply take the time to do it. The fact that they do not is what I'm chalking up to laziness.

I've also seen quite a few replies (out of those that didn't get deleted) which made it apparent the poster did not read critically before replying. That is also laziness.

I have no problem with anything you have said because you took the time to explain it. I might not agree exactly with some conclusions, but your

[Codeine]

103. A fantastic post.

A commendable effort that will, sadly, be alternately ignored and shouted down.

:yourock:

[lamp_shade]

106. WOW - "instead of mindlessly repeating things said by people you've already decided you agree with"

That's precisely how the panicfests get started around here. Excellent post, Austin78704; best I've seen in a while.

[TexasObserver]

112. Unrecommend. What a load of bombastic nonsense!

Got along without you
before I met you
gonna get along without you now.

[lunatica]

119. I'd respect what you say if you weren't so full of egotistical self righteousness

Get over yourself. I suggest you go back to the drawing board and learn to communicate effectively.

[HughMoran]

123. The effectiveness seems to be rather obvious based on the responses

You simply don't want to hear the message :shrug:

[lunatica]

126. I aleady knew the message

But if you admire conceited browbeating that's your prerogative.

[HughMoran]

128. People often don't read/reply to posts that dryly point out a lack of productive outrage

The point is that much of the outrage here is misplaced and non-productive. It doesn't bother me at all because I've also been alarmed at the misinformation and misplaced anger. Why would we want to waste energy and look stupid doing it?

[austin78704]

163. How would you have gotten the point across?

I'm willing to learn.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blindpig]

127. The best thing we could do is to kill Capitalism.

[dionysus]

131. LOL, the comrades will save us! because communist societies don't use fuel or plastic.

:crazy:

[blindpig]

137. Imbibing in your own goods again, god of the vine?

It is a matter ofrational production of goods to meet human need rather than breakneck production to maximize profits. It is also a matter of a Pentagon which accounts for 40% of US petroleum usage. Addressing those issues alone would greatly reduce demand. Repairing our transportation system, which has also been design to produce the maximum return for Capital with a great emphasis on rail would help a good bit too.

But you just keep on with your lame ass red baiting, willful ignorance is no stranger in there parts.

[HughMoran]

129. Skinner Box. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

143. Isn't it, though?

:rofl:

[rudy23]

150. I'm glad you're having a good laugh at our outrage down here on the Gulf Coast.

Like shooting fish in a barrel, right?

[HughMoran]

155. That's a big-time mis-characterization

I'm as outraged as anybody and have the utmost sympathy for those directly affected by this disaster. That's exactly why I think it's critical that we keep the outrage focused so it will have the most positive impact.

[rudy23]

159. You're harrassing people and trying to turn their emotions against them. nt

[HughMoran]

160. Please stop attacking me

I'm not attacking you.

[walldude]

151. You're right, I don't like it.

I haven't even been here much for this disaster but I always love reading posts that claim that their outrage is the proper outrage and everyone else is just wasting their breath. Not to mention that after you attack people for their "improper outrage" you come up with the martyr line "I'm well aware I'm going to be attacked personally" :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Gimme a break...

[Stinky The Clown]

153. Unrec - You may be right. You may be wrong. But your tone is offensive and pompous.

[blondeatlast]

154. I'm outraged that you, dear OP, have not returned to this thread. nt

[austin78704]

164. I was at work. n/t

[Greyhound]

161. What a shock, a Texas oil industry worker pushing the corporate line.

:kick: & U

[austin78704]

172. What corporate line is that? Quote it.

I'll bet you can't.

P.S. I'm not an oil industry worker. I never will be, either--they're terrible employers.

[Lost-in-FL]

165. ...

:toast: :thumbsup:

[goforit]

175. You only have 85 posts.....Are You a OIL Propagandist???????????WTF???

Yes those poooooor little oil parasites!

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

177. There's some clear logic.

Forget about reading his OP and responding to the specifics; forget about seeing other interlocutors' objections. Just look at his post count and accuse him of working for the oil industry.

"goforit," did you get your name from the Rocky V soundtrack?

[austin78704]

178. I had 63 when I initially posted this thread.

What would my post count need to be to meet with your approval?