peer review.

[Gravy]

If Gravy was being fair, he would have admitted that what realcddeal said was a reasonably accurate statement.
But no, he had to start nit-picking.

I also want to mention that in the last thirty years of oil shortage scares Brazil has managed to become completely energy independent and does not import oil any longer. Why are they able to do it and we aren't?

Brazil Imports of Crude Oil, 2006
426,800 barrels/day. Increase over 2005: 1.7%

Brazil Imports of Refined Products, 2006
337,900 barrels/day. Increase over 2005: 3.7%

Brazil Imports of Natural Gas, 2006
9.46 billion cubic meters. Increase over 2005: 7.4%

Any questions?

 

[Viper Daimao]

geez this thread went downhill.

 

[hellaeon]

Me being a kid does not change what the police witness said. You are calling him a liar.

Im intrigued at this point. Clearly the pictures show there is no hole (unless I am looking at the wrong thing) but the police officer says you could push a pencil through it. He obviously is wrong, either purposefully or not. If you contend to say he is correct when the physical evidence shows he is not, your wrong.

Why dont you just accept and concede this, thank others for pointing it out and move on?

Apologies if I got this mixed up, there are a number of single sentence posts.

 

[Apollo20]

Yes, thanks to the off-topic boys...

Brazil... La la la la la la... Brazil...

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

IF your mom tells you that trash pickup is on the 7th and you need to get it to the curb on time, and you miss it, saying "I thought today was the 5th" are you lying?
No. you were mistaken, or ill-informed
IF your mom tells you that trash pickup is on the 7th and you need to get it to the curb on time, shows you the calender, pointing out that today is the 6th, and that tomorrow is the 7th, and you miss it, saying "I thought today was the 5th" are you lying?
yes. The truth was pointed out to you, and you ignored it.

"Nearly" does not equal "is"
available the data was. Ignored and mirepresented it also was.

Some of you guys are the biggest nit pickers I have ever seen. Brazil imported 80% of their energy supplies in 1978. They are well into the single digits today and essentially are import free and if not totally will be in the near future. It is the gravy boy who is misrepresenting this not I. The figures he gave for their imports are relative and mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Of course, he wouldn't tell you they were relative but I would hope most people here can see that.

 

[rwguinn]

Some of you guys are the biggest nit pickers I have ever seen. Brazil imported 80% of their energy supplies in 1978. They are well into the single digits today and essentially are import free and if not totally will be in the near future. It is the gravy boy who is misrepresenting this not I. The figures he gave for their imports are relative and mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Of course, he wouldn't tell you they were relative but I would hope most people here can see that.

Welcome to the real world.
You call it nit-picking. In this case, it is not.
Were you to assert that the yield stress of A-36 steel is 35.98 ksi, and I assert that it is 35.987 ksi, that is nit-picking.
If you assert that Brazil "does not import oil any longer", and Gravy point out that in 2006, Brazil imported 426,800 barrels/day, nobody in his right mind is going to agree with you that 155,782,000 barrels/year=none, or even "essentially import free"
We deal in reality here. Numbers and words have real meaning, and we insist that you back up your assertions.
You will never convince anyone who actually uses his brain that 1=0. Not here, and not in real life.

 

[Gravy]

Happy birthday, Hellaeon!

 

[TerryUK]

Prove it. Or are you lying?

Gravy - this is what you wrote about the poster named realcddeal.
You describe him as a liar ... "the guy who repeatedly refuses to read the reports he's directed to, who won't even read the captions on photos, who accuses the witnesses and investigators who refute his claims of being liars and frauds, and whose screen name tells us about the objective nature of his search."
Then you continue: "What an absurdly bad liar you are, realcddeal. Do you even understand what you write?"

So let's look at what you've done.
First you invent a false story where he's supposed to have lied, you then use this fabricated story as evidence that he lied, and then call him a liar... then , for good measure, you criticise him for him 'screen name' for god's sake.

Why don't you stick to the truth?
Are you so anchored to your beliefs, that you have to lie when the truth is not enough?

 

[beachnut]

quibble

Some of you guys are the biggest nit pickers I have ever seen. Brazil imported 80% of their energy supplies in 1978. They are well into the single digits today and essentially are import free and if not totally will be in the near future. It is the gravy boy who is misrepresenting this not I. The figures he gave for their imports are relative and mean nothing in the overall scheme of things. Of course, he wouldn't tell you they were relative but I would hope most people here can see that.

Why have they almost doubled their natural gas imports? That is energy imports. Why are you truthers bad on the facts? And why have they increased their imports of refined products? I have to think increases are increases and you want to quibble about it.

No one said Brazil did not decrease its imports of oil. Why are you wrong all the time?

 

[rwguinn]

Why have they almost doubled their natural gas imports? That is energy imports. Why are you truthers bad on the facts? And why have they increased their imports of refined products? I have to think increases are increases and you want to quibble about it.

No one said Brazil did not decrease its imports of oil. Why are you wrong all the time?

It is much like the "Congress cut the budget" scam the press always uses:
Previous year's budget for X=$32 billion
Requested budget for X=$50 billion
Actual passed buidget for X=$40 billion, a 20% cut! (from the requested amount, actually an increase of 8/32= 25%)

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Welcome to the real world.
You call it nit-picking. In this case, it is not.
Were you to assert that the yield stress of A-36 steel is 35.98 ksi, and I assert that it is 35.987 ksi, that is nit-picking.
If you assert that Brazil "does not import oil any longer", and Gravy point out that in 2006, Brazil imported 426,800 barrels/day, nobody in his right mind is going to agree with you that 155,782,000 barrels/year=none, or even "essentially import free"
We deal in reality here. Numbers and words have real meaning, and we insist that you back up your assertions.
You will never convince anyone who actually uses his brain that 1=0. Not here, and not in real life.

The U.S. imports 11.8 million barrels per day for a total of 4,307,000,000 barrels/year or 27.6 times as much oil as does Brazil. Brazil has a population of 190 million people and is the fifth largest in the world. The U.S. has a population of 301 million and is the third largest. Brazil imports single digit percentages of its energy needs right now and probably won't even be doing that much longer. They also export ethanol and that offsets energy imports. Gravy boy won't tell you that, but maybe he just didn't understand it isn't black and white and based on single figures. The U.S. imports 57% of its net energy needs with Brazil at near 0% net. That is the only way to really say it.

By the way, you never admitted you were wrong about the Hoover dam being constructed using a monolithic pour.

This is my last post on this here as I will start a different thread on this subject and not continue to go off topic.

 

[rwguinn]

The U.S. imports 11.8 million barrels per day for a total of 4,307,000,000 barrels/year or 27.6 times as much oil than Brazil. Brazil has a population of 190 million people and is the fifth largest in the world. The U.S. has a population of 301 million and is the third largest. Brazil imports single digit percentages of its energy needs and the U.S. imports 57% of its ebergy needs. That is the only way to really say it.

By the way you never admitted you were wrong about the Hoover dam being constructed using a monolithic pour.

That's becaues you are wrong. Monolithic does not equal single pour. The dam is an interlocking, continous piece. It wasn't poured as a continous wet-on-wet, but it is monolithic--one final piece. no joints. I even gave you links...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's becaues you are wrong. Monolithic does not equal single pour. The dam is an interlocking, continous piece. It wasn't poured as a continous wet-on-wet, but it is monolithic--one final piece. no joints. I even gave you links...

You said to Architect "Don't you use monolithic pours? It was good enough for the Hoover Dam". You weren't saying the dam was a monolithic dam. You seemed to be discussing how it was poured. I just asked you what you meant by it. You are the one who came roaring back with a comment that I must not know anything about engineering and construction.

 

[TerryUK]

Welcome to the real world.
You call it nit-picking. In this case, it is not.
Were you to assert that the yield stress of A-36 steel is 35.98 ksi, and I assert that it is 35.987 ksi, that is nit-picking.
If you assert that Brazil "does not import oil any longer", and Gravy point out that in 2006, Brazil imported 426,800 barrels/day, nobody in his right mind is going to agree with you that 155,782,000 barrels/year=none, or even "essentially import free"
We deal in reality here. Numbers and words have real meaning, and we insist that you back up your assertions.

He wasn't presenting a mathematically accurate account for anyone to rely on - he was merely conveying the idea that Brazil had performed well in reducing their oil import reliance from very high in the 1970s to very low in 2007.
YES, for the nitpickers like you he should have avoided any inaccuracies or exagerations, even though HONEST people understand that in normal communication an exageration like that is not at all trying to mislead - especialy when he gave links to thescource of the info...

You also said:

You will never convince anyone who actually uses his brain that 1=0. Not
here, and not in real life.

You see? You've done it again.
You characterize this as trying to convince people that "1=0"

Why don't you stick to honestmethods of argument?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's becaues you are wrong. Monolithic does not equal single pour. The dam is an interlocking, continous piece. It wasn't poured as a continous wet-on-wet, but it is monolithic--one final piece. no joints. I even gave you links...

Just in case you forgot what you actually said in the other thread here it is

You mean you don't use monolithic pours any more? If it was good enougth for Boulder (Hoover) dam, it outta be goo enough for an office building!

Now maybe you meant a monolithic structure by that and you could have simply answered me that way initially.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy - this is what you wrote about the poster named realcddeal.
You describe him as a liar ... "the guy who repeatedly refuses to read the reports he's directed to, who won't even read the captions on photos, who accuses the witnesses and investigators who refute his claims of being liars and frauds, and whose screen name tells us about the objective nature of his search."
Then you continue: "What an absurdly bad liar you are, realcddeal. Do you even understand what you write?"

So let's look at what you've done.
First you invent a false story where he's supposed to have lied, you then use this fabricated story as evidence that he lied, and then call him a liar... then , for good measure, you criticise him for him 'screen name' for god's sake.

Why don't you stick to the truth?
Are you so anchored to your beliefs, that you have to lie when the truth is not enough?

My claims about him are true. He's welcome to believe whatever he wants about the investigators and witnesses. But making unsubstantiated claims about them, and refusing to accept correction, and refusing to even read what he pretends to be critiquing, and repeating the same claims, is lying. This isn't so difficult.

You said I often wrongly accuse people of lying. Why don't you assemble some examples and start a thread about it? I'll gladly apologize to anyone I've wrongly accused.

Go ahead. Or were you lying?

ETA: By the way, for some reason – perhaps you'll explain why – you neglected to include the realcddeal quote that I was responding to when I called him a liar, which is this:

Concerning the events of 911 my goal is honest objective evaluation and analysis of the entire mass of evidence.

A demonstrably false statement, as I pointed out in my post.

 

[beachnut]

Full of cholesterol

This is the only fact you will ever bring to 9/11 truth. ?

 

[TerryUK]

My claims about him are true. He's welcome to believe whatever he wants about the investigators and witnesses. But making unsubstantiated claims about them, and refusing to accept correction, and refusing to even read what he pretends to be critiquing, and repeating the same claims, is lying. This isn't so difficult.

You said I often wrongly accuse people of lying. Why don't you assemble some examples and start a thread about it? I'll gladly apologize to anyone I've wrongly accused.

Go ahead. Or were you lying?

You say: "Go ahead. Or were you lying"

A 'reasonable' person would understand this to mean "unless you go ahead and make a list, you are lying"

So now, I have to go look for examples and make a list, and if I don't, I'm a liar...?
This is just another one of your, IMO, dishonest tactics Gravy.

Any questions?

If so they'll have to wait until another day, I have to log off for now.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, thanks to the off-topic boys...

Brazil... La la la la la la... Brazil...

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!

Don't you have Physorg for that???

This is a CT forum Frank...remember? Stop with the scientific Elitism already...you are usually the first to defend the high schoolers right to "question" the science of the NIST report.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

You say: "Go ahead. Or were you lying"

A 'reasonable' person would understand this to mean "unless you go ahead and make a list, you are lying"

So now, I have to go look for examples and make a list, and if I don't, I'm a liar...?
This is just another one of your, IMO, dishonest tactics Gravy.

Any questions?

If so they'll have to wait until another day, I have to log off for now.

Good, maybe rather then running your mouth off, you'll come back and actually try to debate the man...

TAM