1

The Lounge / Midnight

« on: August 03, 2007, 03:50:35 AM »

Here's a nice conversation that may help you make up your mind.

... if we assume that the search for WMDs was a lie, and that there were no other justifications which are not known to the public at this time.

However, I think you're probably right.

There was never a point when Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.  It was not self-defense, however you look at it.

Anything that threatens our oil supply is a direct threat to the economic ability of the U.S.. I don't see how protecting our oil supply is not an act of self-defense. I just wish Bush said that's why we are there.

Unfortunately, you are out of your league again, Narcy baby...

The United States of America receives more imported oil from Canada, Mexico, Russia, and yes, CHINA, than all the arab nations combined, more than one time over. We do not NEED the oil in Iraq, and we certainly have no REASON to (so, again, defending what, from whom?) . Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more. So...no.

This is all data readily available from FOIA, which, like the other thread from the other day, I assume will scare you into muted silence.

You may go now.

I thought that the reserves were reported to only last for the next 20 to 40 years?

Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

False.

Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

False.

You're right - what I said was basically false. I apologise for my mistake - I misread some of the information and it's actually more like 4 years and 70 days... which is still under twenty years so I wasn't entirely wrong (and defnitely closer to twenty than 200 was).

The combined total of proven reserves, reported reserves & stock for the USA is 29,173,390,000 barrels. The USA uses 21,000,000 barrels per day (This is from a weekly report - so I thought it was per week but it's actually per day). To make the proven reserves, reported reserves and stock last 200 years this would have to drop down to 400,000 barrels a day (i.e. 52.5 times less than what is presently being used). To put that in perspective this is essentially saying that anything that uses all can only be used one week out of every year. Based on present usage the proven reserves, reported reserves & stock would be used before the end of 2011. The reason why you can use so much oil is because you import shitloads of it. Take away the imports and you're fucked.


All data was taken from the Energy Adminstration Information website.

Our national reserves are in place to sustain us, as a SUV guzzling nation of idiots, for at least two-hundred years or more.

Under twenty years more like it.

False.

You're right - what I said was basically false. I apologise for my mistake - I misread some of the information and it's actually more like 4 years and 70 days... which is still under twenty years so I wasn't entirely wrong (and defnitely closer to twenty than 200 was).

The combined total of proven reserves, reported reserves & stock for the USA is 29,173,390,000 barrels. The USA uses 21,000,000 barrels per day (This is from a weekly report - so I thought it was per week but it's actually per day). To make the proven reserves, reported reserves and stock last 200 years this would have to drop down to 400,000 barrels a day (i.e. 52.5 times less than what is presently being used). To put that in perspective this is essentially saying that anything that uses all can only be used one week out of every year. Based on present usage the proven reserves, reported reserves & stock would be used before the end of 2011. The reason why you can use so much oil is because you import shitloads of it. Take away the imports and you're fucked.


All data was taken from the Energy Adminstration Information website.

Again false. That link is run by the same people who lie about it. Fail.

Again false. That link is run by the same people who lie about it. Fail.

Ah, I see. The USA must have oil reservse to last 200 years because you said so - if there's other information provided that contradicts this it must be a lie.

 

Mids, what source do you have for your '200 years' claim? How do you know that source doesn't also lie?

I am tired of repeating myself. FOIA.

Then instead of just repeating the same stupid things how about trying something intelligent. You could at least try expanding on what you have said previously.

Not to mention, I live in Texas. Visit the oil fields here. They have charts and graphs and actual documentation on the state of each and every field. Know what? That is only in TEXAS.

Wow, the EIA has data for the entire USA - not just for one state.

The end.

Does this mean you're going to stop? I don't know if I can take much more of your stupidity.


Here's the thing, you're confused midnight. You're not talking about oil reserves. Take a deep breathe before you shut you're mind off and start arguing.

You're talking about oil shale. The USA has an estimated 800,000,000,000 barrels of oil that could be extracted from oil shale. Still that's not nearly enough for 200 years and it costs twice as much to produce.


Keep digging your own grave there midnight... you might just strike oil.

I am tired of repeating myself. FOIA.

Then instead of just repeating the same stupid things how about trying something intelligent. You could at least try expanding on what you have said previously.

Not to mention, I live in Texas. Visit the oil fields here. They have charts and graphs and actual documentation on the state of each and every field. Know what? That is only in TEXAS.

Wow, the EIA has data for the entire USA - not just for one state.

The end.

Does this mean you're going to stop? I don't know if I can take much more of your stupidity.


Here's the thing, you're confused midnight. You're not talking about oil reserves. Take a deep breathe before you shut you're mind off and start arguing.

You're talking about oil shale. The USA has an estimated 800,000,000,000 barrels of oil that could be extracted from oil shale. Still that's not nearly enough for 200 years and it costs twice as much to produce.


Keep digging your own grave there midnight... you might just strike oil.

Janes.com, another good source of information for the dipshit parade to follow. The difference between blanket statements spoken by some of you, and the lack of fleshed out data I present, is a simple one:

You can follow the links, and research it, and read it. I refuse to hold your hands. Anyone can make an insult, and use that to justify whatever delusion they wish. I have nothing to prove to you people. You will either look it up for yourselves, or pot shot. It isn't my problem.

Either look it up, or keep telling yourself you are intelligent. 

I have nothing to prove to you people.

Sure you do - the statement that the USA has enough oil reserves for 200 years.

You will either look it up for yourselves, or pot shot. It isn't my problem.

Either look it up, or keep telling yourself you are intelligent. 

Already looked it up, suggest you do the same.

I await your dissertation on my fail.

And, because I truly am a nice person, I will educate you on your response before this latest thrilling installment.

-> Your comment about mine, about Texas? read my post again, a little slower. You missed the meaning behind my statement. *hug n kiss*

I await your dissertation on my fail.

And, because I truly am a nice person, I will educate you on your response before this latest thrilling installment.

-> Your comment about mine, about Texas? read my post again, a little slower. You missed the meaning behind my statement. *hug n kiss*

Did I read it wrong? Sorry, I read it as "texas is the only state that has such extensive data on its oil fields" - I was trying to point out that the EIA doesn't go through the states to get its data but goes directly to the source and has more data for the entire oil reserves of the USA than texas has for the entire reserves of the USA. If I have misread what you wrote please try to be less ambiguous in the future.

C'mon and educate me - it's what I've been waiting for. So far you've shown me nothing but your arrogance and stupidity. If you can provide me with other information that is contrary to what I have provided I will gladly clam up.

In the meantime I don't have anything to add - I've demonstrated my point. Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

Did I read it wrong? Sorry, I read it as "texas is the only state that has such extensive data on its oil fields" - I was trying to point out that the EIA doesn't go through the states to get its data but goes directly to the source and has more data for the entire oil reserves of the USA than texas has for the entire reserves of the USA. If I have misread what you wrote please try to be less ambiguous in the future.

Ambiguous. I like that. LMFAO.

My meaning was this, of the '200 some-odd years' worth of stashed dead animals we have to power our excess, a sizeable portion OF that, is located here, in my state. It's not some clandestine secret, labrynthine X-Files-scope fucking black Ops. It's called fucking reality.

Do your research, or assume. I honestly can't be bothered with you further on this.

C'mon and educate me - it's what I've been waiting for. So far you've shown me nothing but your arrogance and stupidity. If you can provide me with other information that is contrary to what I have provided I will gladly clam up.

I highly doubt you capable of that one.

In the meantime I don't have anything to add - I've demonstrated my point. Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

No, you've demonstrated an opinion. Not the same thing as a point, but I digress.

It was interesting at first, now it's just another Narcberry argument session. Come in, say something adamant based on personal opinion rather than researched fact, wait two or three days after it is disemboweled, then nitpick as a self defense mechanism with blanket statements of stupidity, and IEA (never said that term, you did, oh wait) and then crawl back into the hallway with the self-righteous indignation of "my comment alters physical reality".

Sorry, you stating someone is wrong simply because they are wrong, again, by using references no one brought into the conversation but yourself, will not alter physical reality.

Good luck with that technique. 

I know it's not clandestine. I know the informations readily avialable. I've been reading the information of a reliable source... which for some reason you thought was lying about the information - who's into the clandestine shit now?

Did you even bother checking out the EIA website or did you just disregard it because it demonstrated that you were talking out of your ass?

C'mon and educate me - it's what I've been waiting for. So far you've shown me nothing but your arrogance and stupidity. If you can provide me with other information that is contrary to what I have provided I will gladly clam up.

I highly doubt you capable of that one.

If you were capable of providing me with other information I would easily let this go. So, we're back to this...

In the meantime I don't have anything to add - I've demonstrated my point. Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

My "opinions" are backed by information and research. You just keep on talking out of your ass.

Yet again, feel free to check out the EIA website or explain why it isn't a reliable source - what makes you think they're lying?

Until you come up with something substantial I'm not going to bother replying.

Your refusal to read the source(s) I cited reflects that obvious false statement.

3-0 

still waiting...

still waiting...

No, you've demonstrated an opinion. Not the same thing as a point, but I digress.

It was interesting at first, now it's just another Narcberry argument session. Come in, say something adamant based on personal opinion rather than researched fact, wait two or three days after it is disemboweled, then nitpick as a self defense mechanism with blanket statements of stupidity, and IEA (never said that term, you did, oh wait) and then crawl back into the hallway with the self-righteous indignation of "my comment alters physical reality".

Sorry, you stating someone is wrong simply because they are wrong, again, by using references no one brought into the conversation but yourself, will not alter physical reality.

Good luck with that technique. 

GL. 

Bumped to annoy.

Bumped.

Still waiting.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / The not so bright foundation...

« on: July 27, 2007, 04:06:07 AM »

I think the first thing we should due is stop using the word "atheist" and start using the word "bright." Bright is an umbrella term for humanist (way of life) and naturalist (beliefs about the universe) -- and all the other terms like atheist, skeptic, etc. It describes a full-spectrum worldview, not just religious beliefs.

No, it does not imply people who have naturalistic worldviews are smarter than people who don't, anymore than the word "gay" implies that homosexuals are happier than hetero- or bisexuals. The opposite of gay isn't glum and the opposite of bright isn't dim (or dumb). The word proposed is "super" (with reference to "supernaturalistic") but those with supernatural elements in their worldviews (God, ESP, New Age beliefs, pseudoscience, Chi, etc) are free to pick another one.

    *  A bright is a person who has a naturalistic worldview
    * A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements
    * The ethics and actions of a bright are based on a naturalistic worldview

I think it's a stupid idea and while people might use it without trying to imply that people who have naturalistic worldviews are smarter I certainly think many people would infer as much and get more off side with a bright than they would a humanist.

I think atheist, humanist, morale secularist, etc. are names that describe the position of the people - what does bright do except leave room for misinterpretation?

Then I have to question why "bright" and not something else? It's all well and good to say that you're not implying that people with those views aren't smarter but when the name was selected the connotations should have been obvious. It would be like calling an organisation devoted to festivals, cheer and all round happiness the Gay Organisation - sure you may mean gay purely in a sense of joy but that won't matter to the wider public.

How about the brights put their money where their mouth and call themselve dum - it's just a meaningless word that can be used as an umbrella term.

What are people's thoughts?

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Atheist Politicians

« on: July 26, 2007, 04:01:04 AM »

I found this on a website and was wandering what people thought of it...

Recently Kevin Rudd attempted to push his religious views regarding stem cell research onto the 21,000,000 people of Australia, the majority of which do not support his views. On the topic of politics, how many atheists politicians can you name? Yet a meta study by MENSA found that of 43 studies into the relationship between religion and intelligence, 39 found an inverse relationship and 4 found no relationship. So atheists are more intelligent and none of them are politicians.

How many atheist politicians can you name?

4

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Cosmetic Surgery will make peole naturally ugly

« on: July 25, 2007, 04:39:31 AM »

• Cosmetic surgery overcomes a person's natural ugliness.
• This means that ugly people will find it easier to mate.
• This means that the ugly genes will get passed on.
• As cosmetic surgery becomes more readily available and sociably acceptable this will become more prevalent.
• The ugly genes will spread through humanity like a plague.

Kill all the ugly people while we still have a chance!!!

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / No Religion & Suicide

« on: July 23, 2007, 04:23:45 AM »

The above chart shows the suicide rates for various countries compared to how many people in that country have "no religion".

I'm just curious as to whether anybody can see any form of correlation there? I can't myself but I thought I'd get other people's opinions on the matter.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Columbus...

« on: July 18, 2007, 09:34:00 AM »

Taken from the September, 1981 Newsletter...

Is this accurate Tom Bishop?

7

The Lounge / reasons Australia should become a republic

« on: July 18, 2007, 07:24:18 AM »

Feel free to add any reasons (serious or not) to this thread.

For the feminist:

The succession of the monarch is extremely sexist.


For the democrat:

There's no democracy in monarchy (though there is in mondemocracyarchy).


For the catholic:

The monarch cannot be married to a catholic.


For the environmentalist:

The monarch's might be the real cause of global warming.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Where do you come from?

« on: July 04, 2007, 04:43:32 AM »

Just curious.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Politics Forum

« on: July 03, 2007, 10:10:09 AM »

I think there's enough politically minded people here that politics could warrant its own forum. What are people's thoughts?

If there's enough people that want one could a moderator bring it up in the super-duper-secret-conspiracy forum?

10

The Lounge / Cool Psychological Trick II

« on: July 03, 2007, 04:20:22 AM »

Think of a number between 1 and 1,000,000. The number has to be even and has to be a prime number.

11

The Lounge / THE EGO HAS LANDED

« on: March 17, 2007, 05:48:11 PM »

The Resistance (lead by Vauxhall the Disputed Goddess) has launched a pre-emptive pre-emptive stirke against the Egotopian Army (lead by pyrochimp) fearing that the Egotopian Army would fear that the Resistance had Weapons of Mass Seduction and launch a pre-emptive strike.

The war will last 5 days, choose your side (and change later on if you wish... and again... and again) do whatever you can to win.

12

The Lounge / Supreme Overlord Seeks Minions

« on: March 16, 2007, 07:33:00 AM »

I am trying to raise a task force to invade an island and establish the Planist State of Egotopia. The State of Egotopia will officially recognise that the earth is definitely flat.

I have selected the following island:

The pay is non-existant and there's a good chance you will die but in the end you'll be rewarded with life-long servitude to yours truly.


GOVERNMENT DECREES

16/03/2007 - A Minion of Egotopia may be a citizen of another state without obstructing their status of Minion.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / God and the constitution

« on: March 14, 2007, 08:02:47 AM »

Do the following phrases discriminate against atheists?

• Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...¹
• In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Ireland, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial...²
• Although religion and the State are separate, the people of the Fiji Islands acknowledge that worship and reverence of God are the source of good government and leadership.³
• In the name of God Almighty!⁴
• ...no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.⁵

Post other god-affirming phrases from constitutions.

End Notes:
1. Canadia - Constitution Act 1982, preamble.
2. Ireland - Constitution, preamble.
3. Fiji - Constitution, section 5.
4. Switzerland - Constitution, preamble.
5. Afghanistan - Constitution, article 3.

14

The Lounge / Is Dann a pretty man(n)?

« on: March 09, 2007, 06:56:31 AM »

I figured I might try and ride off the popularity of another thread.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / March 21st, The Equinox

« on: March 05, 2007, 08:26:49 AM »

Using the dimensions supplied in the FAQ I have worked out that on March 21st (the Equinox) where I am located (2,490 miles south of the equator) will be under the spotlight for 6 hours 4 minutes 35 seconds. Unforunately, during the equinoxes the ammount of sunlight I receive is a little over 12 hours - how do you explain this discrepancy?

Equinox on the flat earth...

16

The Lounge / The Golden Molecule

« on: March 01, 2007, 07:05:01 AM »

Everytime you drink a glass of water, the odds are good that you imbibe at least one molecule that passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell. It's just elementary probability theory. The number of molecules per glassful is hugely greater than the number of number of glassfuls in the world. So everytime we have a full glass, we are looking at a rather high proportion of the molecules of water that exist in the world.¹

Do you agree with the above passage?

Can you calculate roughly what the odds are?

End Notes:

1. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion,  p. 366

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Beneath the Southern Cross I stand...

« on: February 22, 2007, 10:45:23 AM »

By using the Southern Cross and the pointers it is possible to determine the position of south.

EDIT: The position and orientation of the Southern Cross change throughout the night and this can be observed from the one location in the same night. However, using the method (linked above) the Southern Cross and pointers will still point to the same direction.

Using this method why doesn't the position of south change as the Southern Cross's position changes in the night sky? If the earth is flat the method should result in different "souths" depending on the the constellation's position in the sky.