"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d81057b8-bafc-4458-99f1-0cdb35ab6560@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 25, 7:12 am, "Eddie Haskell" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Dave Fritzinger" <dfrit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:804c4021-2c07-4f95-ae20-fb9f4f03f368@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Jul 23, 11:41 am, "Eddie Haskell" <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "z" <gzuck...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:aeca01f3-de80-41d8-b468-70f67dfb5391@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Jul 18, 10:03 pm, "Eddie Haskell" <hhs...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > How impressive. Now, formulate an equation that will tell us the how
> > > much
> > > oil the US has and how long it will last with the following
> > > information:
>
> > > 1) US percentage of world produced oil consumption.
>
> > > 2) US percentage of world reserves.
>
> > > "we own 3% of the world's oil. we use 25% of the world's oil. are
you
> > > really thinking that if we could only get at all of that 3%,
> > > everything would work out? you guys really take bush's hatred of
> > > "fuzzy math" to heart."
> > > i did that.
>
> > No you didn't.
>
> > > you didn't like it.
>
> > You don't like the fact that I called you on your fuzzy math.
>
> > > i guess it's gone through that
> > > colander you call a skull now.
>
> > This from the dunderhad that thinks that stating the % of produced oil
> > we
> > use in conjuction with our known % of reserves tells us how much oil
we
> > have
> > and how much it will last.
>
> > Dumb dumb dumb...
>
> > Yes, Eddie, you are "dumb, dumb, dumber". Along with those % numbers
> > you keep mentioning are numbers representing the actual amount of oil
> > we have (proven reserves). Those are the numbers used to calculate how
> > much oil we have (because they *are* the amount of oil we have). Do
> > you understand yet?
> > I didn't think so...
>
> The % of world of reserves we have is only relative to the amount of
> reserves in the world, not the amount of PRODUCED oil we consume, Z, ya
> big
> zero. And that's what you get in math too, a big zero.
> Two points. I am not Z.
Oops.. My bad. You two touting the same irrelevant numbers - it's easy to
get confused.
Now, let this be an example to you as to being a man and admitting when
you
have erred.
> Second, you are wrong again. I only mentioned
> percentages to show how small our reserves in comparison to how much
> oil we consume. The rest of my numbers were based on the number of
> barrels used and proven reserves, in barrels.
> God, it must suck to be you. You declare victory when you have
> actually shown you *still* don't understand my argument.
I understand your argument. You thought that the 25% and 3% figures bore
relevance, and seek any op****tunity to pooh pooh drilling no matter what
in
service of your party masters. That's what got you into trouble in the
first
place.
> Now, go forth and bear your burden of shame..
> Why should I be ashamed about embarrassing an obnoxious fool like
> you?
Here, I'll let you mull it over again. Perhaps given time, you can do more
than name-call and can come up with an explanation that makes you look a
little, well.. more honest and intelligent.
Eddie Haskell: It is quite impossible to take those two numbers and form
an
equation that will tell you how much oil we have or how long it will last,
and both numbers are irrelevant, accurate or not.
Dave Fritzinger: Actually, you are wrong, as usual. One number is the
amount
of oil the US is known to have. Yes we may have some more, but not large
multiples of that amount. The other is the percentage of the world's
production that we consume, and our total consumption.
-Eddie Haskell
|
