Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oil spill conspiracy
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 101 (565862)
06-21-2010 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by riVeRraT
06-21-2010 11:49 AM


See, this response of yours is a prime example of what I am talking about. It is clear by your response that you do not fully read read and comprehend my posts. I did not say I wouldn't explain myself, I said I would not explain myself again.
In which case, you will not explain yourself. Future tense, y'see.
If you claim that you have explained yourself (which is talking about the past) then perhaps it would be more accurate yet to say that you have unsuccessfully tried to explain yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by riVeRraT, posted 06-21-2010 11:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by riVeRraT, posted 06-21-2010 11:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 92 of 101 (565898)
06-21-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Dr Adequate
06-21-2010 4:10 PM


="Dr.inAdequate"If you claim that you have explained yourself (which is talking about the past) then perhaps it would be more accurate yet to say that you have unsuccessfully tried to explain yourself.
No, it would be more accurate for me to say you failed to comprehend. I believe everyone else got it. It's not really that complicated. It is also blatantly obvious that you did not comprehend it, and that if I tried to explain myself another way (something I do for handicap people) you probably wouldn't get that one either. You seem to miss everything I say. either you are dumb, or you are clouded by your own judgment. Which all equates to me wasting my time. It's not like you act nice towards me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2010 4:10 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 5:29 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 101 (566056)
06-22-2010 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
06-12-2010 7:09 AM


That's some nice spin you've got there. You want Obama to take our money and spend it on helping BP out of the mess they've made. This you frame as "protecting" us from them, rather than protecting them from the consequences of their actions. And having framed this as "protecting" us from BP, you then go on (based on a factoid that you made up) to hint that the reason he won't "protect" us --- i.e. save them money at our expense --- is that he's in their pocket.
I'm fairly sure rR was saying something rather different.
If a motor accident occurs and the road gets blocked up by vehicle wrecks - we don't wait for all the parties involved to agree on liabilities, organise and pay for vehicle recovery, oil cleanup, private medical attention and so on.
If the road is a major one, the police (or relevant highways authority) will arrange a local recovery agent to pick up the vehicles and clear the road immediately. The police will pay the recovery agents to do this. This means the tax payer pays for the accident clear up.
This means the road is cleared up and can allow traffic to pass. The government should do this because the roads are a major infrastructure and blocking a major artery has knock-on effects that can lead to further damage (more accidents), lost time in business (couriers, transporters), and hampered access for emergency services to name but a few.
But the police can attempt to recover costs from the liable parties. Either from their insurance company, or directly if the insurance refuses to subrogate.
rR is proposing that the government should have identified a major threat to infrastructure (and the environment) in the spill and should have utilised its resources immediately to mitigate the losses sustained by it to innocent third parties (fishermen, strippers etc). Once the situation had been cleared up, the process of identifying liabilities should have been completed and the appropriate parties charged the costs.
The counterargument is that BP were on-site, knew the situation better than anyone and should have the equipment and manpower to deal with it. rR addresses that by saying
rR writes:
Are we to trust the company that may have been negligent to begin with? Isn't everything $ and sense to them? Do they really care about our environment?
rR suggests that the government has a duty of care to the citizens that it failed to carry out, that it did so at least partly because it's executive head, Obama, had a conflict of interest between the interests of the people that elected him and his own interests (keeping a political contributor 'on-side').
This isn't about protecting 'us' from BP - it's about protecting 'us' from oil (I'm potentially not one of the 'us' - although a lot of my families finances are
1) tied up in the Gulf of Mexico
2) tied up in the oil industry (though a different company)
so I guess it does affect me one way or another, anyway.)
It isn't about protecting BP from the costs, he even explicitly said
rR writes:
charge BP later

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-12-2010 7:09 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 5:33 PM Modulous has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 101 (566058)
06-22-2010 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by riVeRraT
06-21-2010 11:45 PM


No, it would be more accurate for me to say you failed to comprehend. I believe everyone else got it. It's not really that complicated. It is also blatantly obvious that you did not comprehend it, and that if I tried to explain myself another way (something I do for handicap people) you probably wouldn't get that one either. You seem to miss everything I say. either you are dumb, or you are clouded by your own judgment. Which all equates to me wasting my time. It's not like you act nice towards me.
You know, if you'd spent the same amount of time and effort explaining yourself as you have bitching about me asking you to explain yourself, you could probably have done it several times over.
And then you complain that explaining yourself would be wasting your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by riVeRraT, posted 06-21-2010 11:45 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 95 of 101 (566059)
06-22-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Modulous
06-22-2010 5:01 PM


See posts #31, #59.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2010 5:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2010 5:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 96 of 101 (566062)
06-22-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2010 5:33 PM


See posts #31, #59.
I did. What now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 5:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 6:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 97 of 101 (566067)
06-22-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Modulous
06-22-2010 5:52 PM


I did. What now?
Well now I guess your time's pretty much your own. Kick back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2010 5:52 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 06-22-2010 6:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 101 (566071)
06-22-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Adequate
06-22-2010 6:26 PM


I suppose that means that if you ever feel like explaining the relevance of those posts to the point I was raising, then I guess I'll be able to spend that free time I have reading it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-22-2010 6:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 99 of 101 (566277)
06-23-2010 11:33 PM


Modulous pretty much nailed it on the head, no wait, he exactly nailed it on the head.
And Adequate, using the "teach a man to fish" analogy, I feel it is time better spent in clearing up how you perceive things. If I can change that, then I wouldn't have to go on explaining myself anymore.

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 100 of 101 (567422)
07-01-2010 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Percy
06-12-2010 11:36 AM


Deadly sea turtle witches + God hates Alabama
A secret conspiracy to set fire to Sea Turtles has caused controversy. BP suggest the Turtles are conspiring to transport the oil onto beaches, where they might bury some oil which could be later discovered by innocent baby turtles which spring forth forth from the sand.
Nah - it seems they're just sloppy and don't care about the consequences of their actions...still.
The Atlantic Basin experiences its first June hurricane for about 15 years (and the strongest for over 40) - pushing some oil inland
(AP Photo/Dave Martin)
A Taiwanese vehicle called "A Whale" is heading to the Gulf, where it is hoped it can suck up 21 million gallons of fouled water a day.
Some people are reacting against BP franchises, with boycotts, vandalism, and staff abuse.
There was a protest in the UK against a celebration of the 20 years of BP art sponsorship. Protesters basically made an oily feathery mess.
The sand berm solution is experiencing problems, and funding by the Federal government has been suspended apparently because "the state was pumping sand from a sensitive section of the island chain and had failed to meet an extended deadline to install pipe that would tap sand from a less-endangered area."
Playing in oil polluted waters on an oil polluted beach?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 06-12-2010 11:36 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Taz, posted 07-01-2010 11:46 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 101 of 101 (567495)
07-01-2010 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Modulous
07-01-2010 7:08 AM


Re: Deadly sea turtle witches + God hates Alabama
It soothes the skin.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 07-01-2010 7:08 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024