TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Oil to jump to $US105
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

This companies should REALLY push for newer technology on this issue.. ppl are still paying this prices for gas instead of looking for the better alternatives!! fucking research on it !

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Its amazing how much faith people put in that website. It is the absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility.

Faith? Is this the same kind of "faith" that people have in the theory of evolution? Because I completely ignored the fact that they did any research at all as evidenced by the Sources segment at the bottom of the site:

quote:

Sources: Davis, Michael. "Gas Boycott Lost on Drivers." The Tennessean. 1 May 1999 (p. E3). Deibel, Mary. "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say." The [Albany] Times Union. 27 April 1999 (p. A2). De Marcol, Donna. "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal." The Washington Times. 1 May 1999 (p. C11). Heaster, Jerry. "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty." The Kansas City Star. 30 April 1999 (p. C1). Howe, Kenneth. "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area." The San Francisco Chronicle. 1 May 1999 (p. A1). Sands, Aaron. "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas." The Ottawa Sun. 1 May 1999 (p. A4). Simmons, Cindy. "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump." Associated Press. 1 May 1999. Surman, Matt. "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change." Los Angeles Times. 1 May 1999 (p. B6). Associated Press. "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'" 1 May 1999. Calgary Herald. "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott." 1 May 1999 (p. E5). Indianapolis Business Journal. "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump." 3 May 1999 (p. B9). Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps." 1 May 1999 (p. B3). The Toronto Star. "Gas Boycott Sputters." 1 May 1999.

Or maybe I'm simply not privy to the mountain of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of a gas boycott that you are perhaps aware of?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Faith? Is this the same kind of "faith" that people have in the theory of evolution? Because I completely ignored the fact that they did any research at all as evidenced by the Sources segment at the bottom of the site: Or maybe I'm simply not privy to the mountain of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of a gas boycott that you are perhaps aware of?

You PDDs, always looking for a fight. Its a freakin website. People reference it as "Snopes says its true/false so there you go." Thus my observation: amazing.

Now give me your evidence for the efficiency of gas boycott. I have to go to the bathroom and I'm out of toilet paper.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 You PDDs, always looking for a fight.

"You PDDs" ... lol. Ummm well gee, this is a forum for debate. Was I not supposed to respond to your comment? It didn't look rhetorical.

quote:

Its a freakin website. People reference it as "Snopes says its true/false so there you go." Thus my observation: amazing.

Well people usually respond in that manner because whenever Snopes makes a true or a false determination, they comprehensively research the issue and post their sources to back up their determination. In the event they don't have enough evidence they use the undetermined tag. Is it a stretch of the imagination to believe that people can come to trust in a source that consistentely backs up what they say with evidence?

quote:

Now give me your evidence for the efficiency of gas boycott. I have to go to the bathroom and I'm out of toilet paper.

There is no evidence supporting the efficacy of a gas boycott, wasn't that the point of my reference? I'm afraid you'll have to use your hands.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider "You PDDs" ... lol. Ummm well gee, this is a forum for debate. Was I not supposed to respond to your comment? It didn't look rhetorical.

Yall have a way of jumping the gun when you smell that debate. I wasn't making any kind of reference either way to your stance on whatever topic this thread is about. I was making an observation about Snopes.

quote:

Well people usually respond in that manner because whenever Snopes makes a true or a false determination, they comprehensively research the issue and post their sources to back up their determination. In the event they don't have enough evidence they use the undetermined tag. Is it a stretch of the imagination to believe that people can come to trust in a source that consistentely backs up what they say with evidence?

Hmm. Okay? Thats a nice story. Again with the gun thing. I wasn't saying Snopes doesn't deserve the credit they receive. I just think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum. Who goes to the library anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yall have a way of jumping the gun when you smell that debate. I wasn't making any kind of reference either way to your stance on whatever topic this thread is about. I was making an observation about Snopes.

"Jumping the gun" has obvious negative connotations. In what way was I "jumping the gun" in responding to your post about snopes? I thought my response was quite relative and pertinent to your statement. Or was your statement above all recourse such that a response was completely unwarranted?

quote:

Hmm. Okay? Thats a nice story. Again with the gun thing. I wasn't saying Snopes doesn't deserve the credit they receive. I just think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum. Who goes to the library anymore?

Well based upon your statment, you were "amazed" with the "faith" people place on the content of Snopes. It certainly seems like a negative assessment to me. Especially when followed by a statment sarcastically depicting it as an "absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility." Of course, I haven't seen you provide any evidence that suggests we should be wary in trusting Snopes' fact checking abilities, sooo in what way am I jumping the gun? What does a library have to do with anything? Does the dewey decimal system afford a user with unbounded credibility?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yall have a way of jumping the gun when you smell that debate. I wasn't making any kind of reference either way to your stance on whatever topic this thread is about. I was making an observation about Snopes.

Thank you, for that generalizing comment. Yes, we are all pitbulls just waiting for innocent victims to be thrown out way. So that leaves some interesting questions: Why would you keep posting in here, seeing as we have this horrible trait? You post regularly in here as well, so does that mean that you're jumping the gun, too? And if you do, how do you know that you didn't jump the gun, when you took offense in occrider's response?

LOL @ Josh!

If you take offence from debates, get the fuck out of this forum

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I just think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum. Who goes to the library anymore?

The reason there is so much "faith" placed in Snopes as you put it, is because their articles are invariably well-researched, untainted by bias and they are always coldly logical in their appraisal of the issues. On the rare occasions where their facts and / or conclusions have been found to be wanting, the articles are updated and fault is admitted. While obviously it cannot be treated as the canonical authority on every issue it reports on, you can generally trust Snopes to cut through the bullshit and report accurately on the facts pertinent to the issue at hand.

(Oh, and welcome to the PDD. )

quote:

Originally posted by occrider "Jumping the gun" has obvious negative connotations. In what way was I "jumping the gun" in responding to your post about snopes? I thought my response was quite relative and pertinent to your statement. Or was your statement above all recourse such that a response was completely unwarranted? Well based upon your statment, you were "amazed" with the "faith" people place on the content of Snopes. It certainly seems like a negative assessment to me. Especially when followed by a statment sarcastically depicting it as an "absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility." Of course, I haven't seen you provide any evidence that suggests we should be wary in trusting Snopes' fact checking abilities, sooo in what way am I jumping the gun? What does a library have to do with anything? Does the dewey decimal system afford a user with unbounded credibility?

You immediately started defending your opinions about the political issue and Snopes. I wasn't trying to refute them. I'm sorry you got a "negative assessment" from my comments, you should have asked for clarification first. I don't have any evidence people should be wary in trusting Snopes' and don't necessarily think they shouldn't. I think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The reason there is so much "faith" placed in Snopes as you put it, is because their articles are invariably well-researched, untainted by bias and they are always coldly logical in their appraisal of the issues. On the rare occasions where their facts and / or conclusions have been found to be wanting, the articles are updated and fault is admitted. While obviously it cannot be treated as the canonical authority on every issue it reports on, you can generally trust Snopes to cut through the bullshit and report accurately on the facts pertinent to the issue at hand.

Yes, I know. Thank you for re-stating for what has already been established. You PDDs are nothing if not vociferous. Do you think MisterOpus is going to get involved in this? I wonder how many sources he can quote.

quote:

(Oh, and welcome to the PDD. )

Thanks but I've been here for a while. I generally try to avoid you. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but... you smell.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yes, I know. Thank you for re-stating for what has already been established. You PDDs are nothing if not vociferous. Do you think MisterOpus is going to get involved in this? I wonder how many sources he can quote.

Wow, you can be really mean when you're on the defensive.

quote:

Thanks but I've been here for a while.

Yes, I know. Consider this your baptism.

quote:

I generally try to avoid you. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but... you smell.

Hey, you'd smell too if you never showered.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Wow, you can be really mean when you're on the defensive.

* stops swinging his stick around violently *
* frowns, smiles *
* repeats the stick swinging *

quote:

Yes, I know. Consider this your baptism.

quote:

Hey, you'd smell too if you never showered.

* pats his head endearingly *
* wipes hand on jeans *

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 You immediately started defending your opinions about the political issue and Snopes. I wasn't trying to refute them. I'm sorry you got a "negative assessment" from my comments, you should have asked for clarification first. I don't have any evidence people should be wary in trusting Snopes' and don't necessarily think they shouldn't. I think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum.

Duly noted. Sorry I couldn't help you out with your toilet paper situation ...

isnt he one of the COR posters?!?!!... and he calls this forum crap? lol I laugh... well, as we were saying.. RESEARCH on FREAKING TECHNOLOGY>> !!! I was looking for the new Honda Accord Hybrid... it's got a V6 engine, looks good, good performance.. but 30 grands ?!?!?!.. Jeezusss. !! .. The next is the Prius but MAN thats for my granpa kind of car, although it saves a load of gas... I guess I'll end up with the Acura RSX manual .. but if gas keeps going up like that, Id be forced to a Prius .. Im not that rich to afford my long trips to school like that!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX isnt he one of the COR posters?!?!!... and he calls this forum crap? lol I laugh... well, as we were saying.. RESEARCH on FREAKING TECHNOLOGY>> !!! I was looking for the new Honda Accord Hybrid... it's got a V6 engine, looks good, good performance.. but 30 grands ?!?!?!.. Jeezusss. !! .. The next is the Prius but MAN thats for my granpa kind of car, although it saves a load of gas... I guess I'll end up with the Acura RSX manual .. but if gas keeps going up like that, Id be forced to a Prius .. Im not that rich to afford my long trips to school like that!

Do you ever have moments when everyone in a room will just stare at you after you say something and you don't know why?

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX isnt he one of the COR posters?!?!!... and he calls this forum crap? lol I laugh... well, as we were saying.. RESEARCH on FREAKING TECHNOLOGY>> !!! I was looking for the new Honda Accord Hybrid... it's got a V6 engine, looks good, good performance.. but 30 grands ?!?!?!.. Jeezusss. !! .. The next is the Prius but MAN thats for my granpa kind of car, although it saves a load of gas... I guess I'll end up with the Acura RSX manual .. but if gas keeps going up like that, Id be forced to a Prius .. Im not that rich to afford my long trips to school like that!

Well with the Prius and Acura at about 20,000 dollars each i guess putting petrol into the car shouldnt be much of a problem if you can afford the car in the first place.....seems like a lot of money for a car if your a student...................

quote:

Originally posted by zig Well with the Prius and Acura at about 20,000 dollars each i guess putting petrol into the car shouldnt be much of a problem if you can afford the car in the first place.....seems like a lot of money for a car if your a student...................

america is all about the cars!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew america is all about the cars!

or rich students.......

Re: Oil to jump to $US105

quote:

Originally posted by malek Oil to jump to $US105: analyst April 01, 2005 From: Reuters A LEADING investment bank has warned oil could hit $US105 per barrel, which would spread ruin through the US stock market, analysts said overnight. Since the start of the year, oil has risen more than 25 per cent to near $US56 a barrel. Overnight, Goldman Sachs issued research saying oil markets have entered a "super-spike" period that could see prices go as high as $US105. Goldman also raised its 2005 and 2006 New York Mercantile Exchange crude price forecasts to $US50 and $US55, respectively, from $US41 and $US40. A Reuters poll showed that analysts on average expected a mean price for 2005 of $US45.49 a barrel. The analysts revised their super-spike range to $US50-$US105 per barrel from $US50-$US80 previously, noting demand and economic growth in the United States and China especially. While oil companies benefit from rising crude prices, airlines have warned of fuel costs. Airline industry analyst Robert Mann said the consequences of oil reaching $US105 would be so disastrous to the US economy that it is difficult to isolate the airline industry within that scenario. "It's bigger than that," he said. "I think it would ruin the economy. It would be catastrophic." However, Tom Bentz, an analyst at BNP Paribas Commodity Futures Inc., said $US100 oil "is possible, but anything is possible. I hope its not a 1st of April joke...

I hope it will go on..

At this point, the price is driven purely by speculation. I predict there will be a correction some time in the next few months.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/12/mar....reut/index.htm

The airline industry will be fine because most of them, the smart ones at least, have hedged their fuel costs by buying futures contracts. This is what Southwest did for example.

As an interesting side note, you can already see a noticeable market reaction to the high gas prices even though the prices are not that bad from a historical perspective:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/11/Aut...prius/index.htm

If 80% of the US market doubles in fuel efficiency you can bet that would generate noticeable downward pressures on oil prices.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider At this point, the price is driven purely by speculation. I predict there will be a correction some time in the next few months. http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/12/mar....reut/index.htm The airline industry will be fine because most of them, the smart ones at least, have hedged their fuel costs by buying futures contracts. This is what Southwest did for example. As an interesting side note, you can already see a noticeable market reaction to the high gas prices even though the prices are not that bad from a historical perspective: http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/11/Aut...prius/index.htm If 80% of the US market doubles in fuel efficiency you can bet that would generate noticeable downward pressures on oil prices.

Ye your probably correct....but as regards hedgeing of airline fuels, they can only be hedged so far into the future, and fuel prices have been high now for quite a while, and no point in hedgeing at very high prices for the months down the road, its really the airlines that hedged sufficiently before the current spike that have fared best, other airlines are feeling the pinch and chargeing fuel surcharges, the rest will follow if prices remain high much longer.

quote:

Originally posted by zig Ye your probably correct....but as regards hedgeing of airline fuels, they can only be hedged so far into the future, and fuel prices have been high now for quite a while, and no point in hedgeing at very high prices for the months down the road, its really the airlines that hedged sufficiently before the current spike that have fared best, other airlines are feeling the pinch and chargeing fuel surcharges, the rest will follow if prices remain high much longer.

I believe a few of the carriers are hedged throughout 2005, with some being hedged (or working on hedging) into 2006 and 2007. The big carriers will take another hit as they are the least hedged, but I think that enough of the discount carriers are hedged well enough to avoid oligopical pricing.

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA444966.html

A more likely scenario is that another big inefficient airline will be weeded out which will provide greater market share to the leftover contenders. Another reason why I'm somewhat unconcerned with airline prices is that they've been flying with fewer and fewer empty seats this year. I dunno, we'll see.

ok its down to around 50$ a barrel, with as it seems, plenty of stocks........

hmmm another organized massive scam.

quote:

Three charged over oil-for-food Breaking news graphic A Texas businessman, a Bulgarian and a Briton have been indicted over the UN oil-for-food programme, US federal prosecutors have said. They are accused of taking part in an alleged scheme to pay bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The bribes involved funds otherwise intended for humanitarian relief, US Attorney David Kelley said. The $60bn (�32bn) UN programme allowed Iraq to sell oil to buy civilian goods to ease the impact of UN sanctions.

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4445073.stm

^^^^^^Id be more interested in Kofi Annans Son.....tbh...and his indictment.......

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.