[quote=TexasRep]

>>>>Revealer, on that thread, voiced support for the "peak oil" theory. In this thread he talked how he came to the conclusion in Dec of 2000 that we faced " a supply problem of unprecedented proportions " and how "these impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing." and his belief that we're only in the beginning rounds of higher oil prices.
You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't

Oh mike, you can have belief's in 2 separate theories and still not be wrong-

Where's your evidence that these are two "separate theories" and not part of a consistant, unified approach?

if you then say that the short term supply issues COULD be the precursor

Only you raised the issue of "short term" supplies through your inventive reading of Revealer's quotes about his toughts dating back to Dec 2000. In fact "short term" was a phrase that you alone introduced. 

to the longer term supply issue's theory conclusions, you MAY not be wrong--  but HE did not, YOU did- that's unfair, you should not connect the dots for someone, and then go on to rebut it with:

You call it "connecting the dots" with zero evidence. I see a consistant theme, and Revealer hasn't said otherwise.

"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."

that's just wrong.

So you say, but you have to ignore everything he's said to believe it.

BTW, Tex, Revealer's an adult and if he feels I'm mistaken in thinking/saying he has expressed a connection between his support for peak oil and current prices I'll admit it and apologize.

You, otoh, had to be informed after you began this attack line that he is, in fact, a peak oil subscriber.

Like I said earlier. Do you suppose this is gonna go away? (Geopolitical problems) Like I also said earlier, “Most people don’t WANT TO believe this is happening.” And indeed, a lot of people will not buy energy because they believe this is some giant conspiracy. Look, I don’t really care what you believe (or don’t). If you look @ previous posts, you will see that I said, personally I am 3X weighted in energy (approx 30%) and I am nervous about that type of position. I will also share that I own many small E&P co’s and refiners where I have NONE of my “own money” involved because I have sold off entirely original cost. Isn’t this all about making $$? 

Like I said earlier. Do you suppose this is gonna go away? (Geopolitical problems)

No, but we've always had them, as we did when oil was $16 brl. Is it your theory that (and I'm not trying to sound like a DA, just trying to understand your POV here) the risk premium will always be this high?

Like I also said earlier, "Most people don't WANT TO believe this is happening."

What's the "this" that you're talking about? Peak oil's effects?

And indeed, a lot of people will not buy energy because they believe this is some giant conspiracy.

The people I know who think it's a conspiracy are sure oil is only going up forever, since there would be no need for a conspiracy for any other purpose, and they want to buy, buy, buy. Are you saying some people think "peak oil" is a conspiracy or that high prices are?

Look, I don't really care what you believe (or don't).

I was hoping, since this is an exchange of views of professionals, you'd explain your theory on the matter to us and your expectation of prices.

If you look @ previous posts, you will see that I said, personally I am 3X weighted in energy (approx 30%) and I am nervous about that type of position. I will also share that I own many small E&P co's and refiners where I have NONE of my "own money" involved because I have sold off entirely original cost. Isn't this all about making $$? 

I have no problem with making money   and I'm not suggesting you're being unethical. This was all just an attempt to have a civil debate. Thanks for your time

You’re welcome.

[quote=Revealer]You're welcome.[/quote]

rev-

sorry for hopping in- friday was just one of those days.

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement, pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way, and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

he's done it to me, and to others, lately i just try to ignore it, friday, for some reason, i could not--

[quote=Revealer]He’s right. (If not a little “fringy”). I’ve been long “all things energy” since Dec. 2000. Don’t remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. “All things energy” include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.[/quote] Tex: This was in response to a link to a Dec 2005 issue of Fortune where Richard Rainwater espoused his theory of “very disasterous” consequences of the impending energy “shortages”. I simply agreed and you’d thought I’d passed gas (flatulence) in someone’s church! My reference to “changing everything we’ve been taught about investing”, is perhaps the reason that our markets P/E mutiples continue to shrink and we have been in a pretty poor market (less than normal rates of return) for some yrs. now. I intend to conduct my personal and client investments accordingly. I suggest everyone do the same based upon THEIR beliefs. However, a dogmatic attitude rarely wins in the long run (Buy and Hold?) We’ll see how this all turns out, won’t we?

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement,

Sounds like a lame way of saying I quote you...

 pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way,

What does this mean? Should I just assume the various things you've said are unrelated and an example of incoherent, unstructured thought?

 and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

I have to assume by "HIS version" you mean that I quote you directly...

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did, erect a strawman...

the current state of the oil market has allowed many to cash in on their belief's-- this, possibly short term, bull mkt has made many of my clients and relatives very rich- i have a cousin who at age 35 is considering partial retirement as he has seen his Valero stocks make him a millionaire in short order--

the peak oil theory, for the most part, see's global oil supplies peaking in 2010, and then dissipating very quickly, right as demand is escalating higher than ever-

question: is this current oil mkt bull run part and parcel of peak oil?

answer: who cares? if you are riding the wave, and making money-- but technically, the theory theorizes shrinking production as the precursor, and that 2010 is the outside date for production to begin decreasing at 3% per year--

so are you making money in todays market due to the peak-oil theory? possibly, as you said, we will see in time, if this has started with the energy-wars currently being staged- but the supply/shrinking production precursor is the true indicator and that hasn't happened yet-

most believe, i think correctly, that the current short term uptick in energy is due to the terror-premium factor, not a pure supply shortage result- but the encompassing theory also allows for these terror-wars/energy wars as part and parcel of the peak oil theory-

it's really interesting that so many have hopped on this bandwagon, yet very little seems to be changing--

jeesh- you can really be thick when you need to be............

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement,

Sounds like a lame way of saying I quote you...

roses are red.
violets are blue.
Mike: "Although you believe all flowers are either red or blue, it doesn't make it so.."

 pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way,

What does this mean? Should I just assume the various things you've said are unrelated and an example of incoherent, unstructured thought?

Don't be a retard.. you are beginning to admit that you can't understand english when it doesn't suit you..
what it means:
The peak oil theory is convincing to me.
I am making money in this oil-stressed market.
Mike:"...IMHO all the talk about “peak oil” affecting current prices is just talk..."
you knock down the strawman that you erect.....

and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

I have to assume by "HIS version" you mean that I quote you directly...

But you've already admitted that you don't bother....
Mike: "You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't...."

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did, erect a strawman...

No clue what this means....

look, all i'm saying is that you should refrain from "linking" things people say in effort to bend them into a position that you can then bash...it's beneath you.

jeesh- you can really be thick when you need to be............

What was I thinking, assuming you could be civil....

mike has this annoying habit of taking several things you may have written and amalgamating them into one unified statement,

Sounds like a lame way of saying I quote you...

roses are red.
violets are blue.
Mike: "Although you believe all flowers are either red or blue, it doesn't make it so.."

Strawman... a pure invention. I could do the same...

roses are red

violets are blue

Tex: "Where did I ever say anything about flowers? Stop "bending" what I've said"

 pretending not to realize that you did not actually state it that way,

So you're saying you don't have an example, fine...

What does this mean? Should I just assume the various things you've said are unrelated and an example of incoherent, unstructured thought?

Don't be a retard.. you are beginning to admit that you can't understand english when it doesn't suit you..

What are you, 15? If you don't what to be quoted for exactly what you've said, that's your problem.

and then teeing-off on HIS version of what you wrote-

I have to assume by "HIS version" you mean that I quote you directly...

But you've already admitted that you don't bother....
Mike: "You might think it's unfair or a "manipulation of context" to link the two. I don't...."

I admitted nothing other than the fact that YOU clearly didn't understand what Revealer had said and continued to defend long after you inserted yourself in the conversation.  IOW, just becuase you see a problem doesn't mean there is one. All you did was provide a side-show as Revealer explained his theory.

Speaking of manipulating, nice job editing those quotes...

i've tried to bring this to his attention as a pitiful way for a bright guy to debate--- basically erecting a straw-man argument just so he can knock it over to solidify his viewpoint- 

Seems to me that's exactly what you did, erect a strawman...

No clue what this means....

You erected a strawman with this "Mike has this annoying habit" when I hadn't done anything of the sort. You simply inserted yourself, unaware of Revealer's prior comments, which BTW, he didn't back away from, ala Tex.

look, all i'm saying is that you should refrain from "linking" things people say in effort to bend them into a position that you can then bash...it's beneath you.

Notice that only you, and not Revealer felt anything had been "bent".  "Linking" (I assume you're referring to me QUOTING things people have said) things people say seems to me to be a fine way of understanding what they mean. I would hope an adult could speak up for themselves if they feel they've been  misintrepreted and say so. This isn't a trial, there are no traps here, your bruised ego isn't the center of events here.

I suggest that if you, speaking for yourself, feel your positions have been "bent", simply say so and save the outrage. 

right....

and this was a figment of our collective imaginations:

Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision.

no outrage or bruised ego here, just wonder as to why a guy with legitimate takes, needs to twist, link, amalgamate or outright invent things "the other side" never says...
you've got a problem, its time you own up to it.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

[quote=TexasRep]

right....

and this was a figment of our collective imaginations:

Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context. I would ask that the readers read my ENTIRE comment. As far as lots of reserves of alternative source..... You are right. What I want you to do is some research on the COST of extracting those reserves. Of course there is a geopolitical premium in the price of oil. Think that's gonna go away?

Sorry, Revealer, but I don't see where your message was changed when I trimmed down the post to the specific point I wanted to address. But, others can read your original post in its entirety to make their own decision.

no outrage or bruised ego here, just wonder as to why a guy with legitimate takes, needs to twist, link, amalgamate or outright invent things "the other side" never says...
you've got a problem, its time you own up to it.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

[/quote]

Tex, your ego is still obviously bruised from long ago. There's little I can do for you there. Notice that what you've clipped IS NOT Revealer making the case you've been attempting to make.

BTW, here's Revealer's entire post;

He's right. (If not a little "fringy"). I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles convinced me that the world was up against a supply problem of unprecedented proportions. "All things energy" include, oil, nat.gas, coal, drilling, transportation of same but only in North America. These impending shortages change everything we have been taught about investing.

Now, feel free to try to make a logical argument that I "bent" Revealer's comments by leaving out those words in red so that I could address the others specifically. "Problem" indeed.

If there's a consistant theme here it's how you react when people question/dispute some of your ideas on oil and oil policy (and I'm not talking current prices here).

bruised ego? what are you even talking about with that one?

recant is something that i can do when appropriate, it is your inability to do so that is in question, especially after you've been exposed as wrong and as a dubious debater.

Example:
I've been calling to your attention the fact that you twist what others say, and i then post evidence that others don't like either:
from Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."

and you respond (ad nausem) as if you don't understand plain english:
You: "...what you've clipped IS NOT Revealer making the case you've been attempting to make."

you obviously have a problem admitting when you are wrong, all i've tried to do was show it to you, and ask you to refrain from "twisting" what others say when your back is up against the wall--learning to say "i'm sorry, you're right" is a big-boy response. So grow up already.

but alas, your treatment is obviously not taking, and i tire, you'll need to seek help elsewhere, good luck with that problem of yours.

<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office” /><o:p>

bruised ego? what are you even talking about with that one?

Your inability to help yourself from jumping in with both feet, ill-informed at mid-conversation is clearly the lingering effects of your bruised ego over the flame war that began over the meaning of the word “fungible” and whether or not it applied to oil and oil prices.

recant is something that i can do when appropriate,

Got an example of you doing that, that you could share? If you could, you would have done so over your inability to find how I’d “bent” Revealer’s meaning by leaving out I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles from his post. It didn’t escape notice that you dodged that question.

 it is your inability to do so that is in question, especially after you've been exposed as wrong and as a dubious debater.

“Exposed” in your mind, perhaps….personally, I think you've exposed yourself as a petulant child who can't discuss the issue at hand but has to dodge and waive by introducing specious complaints that your own words, quoted directly, don't have the meaning they obviously have.

BTW, it probably escaped your attention, but after your hissy-fit was moved aside, Revealer and I were able to have a ration discussion on an adult level. An exchange of ideas resulted and no temper tantrums or accusations were involved. As I said to him then, if I’m mistaken in how I’d read him, I’m more than happy to learn and admit it. To the objection he did make, I said honestly I didn’t see how trimming out those 22 words changed his meaning, but I welcomed others to make their on decision about it.

Example:
I've been calling to your attention the fact that you twist what others say, and i then post evidence that others don't like either:
from Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."

Yeah, it’s funny how you used that quote and couldn’t explain how I’d changed Revealer’s meaning .

and you respond (ad nausem) as if you don't understand plain english:
You: "...what you've clipped IS NOT Revealer making the case you've been attempting to make."

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since, how many people refuse to see “what’s happening” (note the word HAPPENING, not what WILL HAPPEN, but what is HAPPENING)  how this is a bull market for oil, how he used the key “peak oil” phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil”, yet when I say rather clearly that I think the talk of “peak oil” effecting current oil prices is wrong, you go into a hissy claiming Revealer never said anything of the sort. It was just priceless and <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex to a “T”.

You THEN go on, as “proof”, to introduce all manners of short term reasons for price changes that Revealer had never, never mentioned. Then you pretend that you’ve “proven” something.

In plain English for you, Revealer has never, never claimed that I’ve misinterpreted his theme that peak oil is affecting current prices. Again, does the phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil” ring a bell?

What he DID do in the “don’t take my quotes” line was attempt to say that by leaving out “I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles..” that I’d changed his meaning. I simply disagree (I hope I don’t need your permission to disagree, do I?) and the question still stands to you (although I don’t know if I want to wade into another one of your difficult to read all lower caps posts filled with childish terms like “retarded” to decipher your answer) is just how the meaning was changed.

… the lingering effects of your bruised ego over the flame war that began over the meaning of the word “fungible” and whether or not it applied to oil and oil prices. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Why would I have a bruised ego over an argument that pitted you, Dilbert and Catbert against me, Pres. Bush, Cheney, the US Auto Industry, et al?

Just another of your ridiculous rantings and proof of your inability to see how foolish you can make yourself look.

I’m trying to help you here buddy……………………

recant is something that i can do when appropriate..
Got an example of you doing that, that you could share? If you could, you would have done so over your inability to find how I’d “bent” Revealer’s meaning by leaving out I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles from his post. It didn’t escape notice that you dodged that question.

I’ve answered it, but then I came to realize that you don’t recognize English when it becomes inconvenient for you…

.

BTW, it probably escaped your attention, but after your hissy-fit was moved aside, Revealer and I were able to have a ration discussion on an adult level. An exchange of ideas resulted and no temper tantrums or accusations were involved….

More like Rev (and the rest of this board) knows that trying to get you to debate honesty would be like trying to teach Bill Clinton morals-- a lost cause that I’m slowly resigning myself to as well-

Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."
Yeah, it’s funny how you used that quote and couldn’t explain how I’d changed Revealer’s meaning .

You just to continue to embarrass yourself…

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since….

The Peak Oil Theory wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000:
from the LATOC website:
”…With his eye-opening website, Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004 while becoming one of the most sought after and extensively quoted commentators on what may be the most important issue facing humanity today.

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since, how many people refuse to see “what’s happening” (note the word HAPPENING, not what WILL HAPPEN, but what is HAPPENING)  how this is a bull market for oil, how he used the key “peak oil” phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil”, yet when I say rather clearly that I think the talk of “peak oil” effecting current oil prices is wrong, you go into a hissy claiming Revealer never said anything of the sort. It was just priceless and Tex to a “T”.You THEN go on, as “proof”, to introduce all manners of short term reasons for price changes that Revealer had never, never mentioned. Then you pretend that you’ve “proven” something. In plain English for you, Revealer has never, never claimed that I’ve misinterpreted his theme that peak oil is affecting current prices. Again, does the phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil” ring a bell?What he DID do in the “don’t take my quotes” line was attempt to say that by leaving out “I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles..” that I’d changed his meaning. I simply disagree (I hope I don’t need your permission to disagree, do I?)

Calm down, mikey. Just take a deep breath, close your eyes and keep telling yourself: “I’m still 100%, I’m right, they’re wrong. I’m right, I’m right, I’m right.”
Of course you are, mikey, it’s OK honey, shhhh, close those eyes, calm down, now, everything’s gonna’ be OK--

....and the question still stands to you (although I don’t know if I want to wade into another one of your difficult to read all lower caps posts filled with childish terms like “retarded” to decipher your answer) is just how the meaning was changed.

soRry nASd, i'LL tRy harDer, i PromIse i WiLL.

You're Right!
i am childish!
(see, it's not that hard...)

 <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

… the lingering effects of your bruised ego over the flame war that began over the meaning of the word “fungible” and whether or not it applied to oil and oil prices.

Why would I have a bruised ego over an argument that pitted you, Dilbert and Catbert against me, Pres. Bush, Cheney, the US Auto Industry, et al?

Yeah, that's how it stacked up , lol....

Just another of your ridiculous rantings and proof of your inability to see how foolish you can make yourself look.

I’m trying to help you here buddy……………………

Perhaps in this conversation you shouldn't be helping anyone but yourself...

recant is something that i can do when appropriate..
Got an example of you doing that, that you could share? If you could, you would have done so over your inability to find how I’d “bent” Revealer’s meaning by leaving out I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles from his post. It didn’t escape notice that you dodged that question.

I’ve answered it, but then I came to realize that you don’t recognize English when it becomes inconvenient for you…

Humor me and "answer" it again....just how was the meaning changed?

.

BTW, it probably escaped your attention, but after your hissy-fit was moved aside, Revealer and I were able to have a ration discussion on an adult level. An exchange of ideas resulted and no temper tantrums or accusations were involved….

More like Rev (and the rest of this board) knows that trying to get you to debate honesty would be like trying to teach Bill Clinton morals-- a lost cause that I’m slowly resigning myself to as well-

You sure have an interesting habit of attempting to speak for others. Here's the bottomline, <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Tex, you inject yourself, a flamewar tries to sputter to life. You remain silent and there's an inteligent exchange. There's a lesson in there for you...

Rev: "Mike: Please don't take my quotes out of context."
Yeah, it’s funny how you used that quote and couldn’t explain how I’d changed Revealer’s meaning .

You just to continue to embarrass yourself…

As I see it the only embarrassing thing going on is you dodging that question. Just how did dropping those 22 words change the meaning of the post....

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since….

The Peak Oil Theory wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000:
from the LATOC website:
”…With his eye-opening website, Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004 while becoming one of the most sought after and extensively quoted commentators on what may be the most important issue facing humanity today.

Interesting habit of yours on display there. You make a (false)declarative statement, and then as supporting "evidence" you provide something that doesn't support what you've claimed, as if you figure no-one will notice. Let me spell it out for you; just because Savinar help make it "the breakout"  issue in 2004 doesn’t mean it "wasn’t publicly spoken about in 2000”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) was founded in 2000 by the geologist Colin Campbell.

I suppose next you’ll try to convince us all that Campbell didn’t “speak publicly” or that his organization didn’t publish anything on the subject. Save the bandwidth, I'll correct you on that the second you claim it.

It’s rather amazing how you can’t piece this together. Throughout this thread and the other Revealer has talked up “Peak oil”, his belief in it, how he came to that conclusion in 2000 and has been long oil since, how many people refuse to see “what’s happening” (note the word HAPPENING, not what WILL HAPPEN, but what is HAPPENING)  how this is a bull market for oil, how he used the key “peak oil” phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil”, yet when I say rather clearly that I think the talk of “peak oil” effecting current oil prices is wrong, you go into a hissy claiming Revealer never said anything of the sort. It was just priceless and Tex to a “T”.You THEN go on, as “proof”, to introduce all manners of short term reasons for price changes that Revealer had never, never mentioned. Then you pretend that you’ve “proven” something. In plain English for you, Revealer has never, never claimed that I’ve misinterpreted his theme that peak oil is affecting current prices. Again, does the phrase “It’s the end of cheap oil” ring a bell?What he DID do in the “don’t take my quotes” line was attempt to say that by leaving out “I've been long "all things energy" since Dec. 2000. Don't remember exactly what turned me on, but a combination of events/articles..” that I’d changed his meaning. I simply disagree (I hope I don’t need your permission to disagree, do I?)

Calm down, mikey. Just take a deep breath, close your eyes and keep telling yourself: “I’m still 100%, I’m right, they’re wrong. I’m right, I’m right, I’m right.”
Of course you are, mikey, it’s OK honey, shhhh, close those eyes, calm down, now, everything’s gonna’ be OK—

It’s just fine if you can’t respond to the above with reason, simply admit it and drop the attempt to dodge it. BTW, why did you edit that all into a single paragraph, unless it was a lame attempt to "make a point"?

....and the question still stands to you (although I don’t know if I want to wade into another one of your difficult to read all lower caps posts filled with childish terms like “retarded” to decipher your answer) is just how the meaning was changed.

soRry nASd, i'LL tRy harDer, i PromIse i WiLL.

As I expected, you can’t answer the simple question despite all your ranting and raving that I “bent” his comments….

You're Right!
i am childish!
(see, it's not that hard...)

Progress, we seem to be making progress….

BTW, I asked you if Revealer’s comment about the “end of cheap oil” rang a bell for you. Obviously it didn’t, but here’s the answer;

ASPO was founded by Colin Campbell in 2000 with Jean Laherrère a French petroleum geologist with whom he wrote an important article in Scientific American in 1998 called "The end of cheap oil".

Now, since that was before “peak oil” was “spoken of publicly”, you probably missed it….

so now you respond as if Rev (and the world) was cognizant and talking about Peak Oil in 2000, before Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004?

well--- if all this twisting makes it RIGHT for you... great, i guess that makes our Rev ahead of the rest of the non-scientific world, if you say so, and, (we know, we know) you're always correct.

but i'm out of gas, and the therapy obviously isn't working for you---

good luck, dilbert.

so now you respond as if Rev (and the world) was cognizant and talking about Peak Oil in 2000, before Matt Savinar helped make Peak Oil the breakout issue of 2004?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Why shouldn't I, it's the truth. Savinar did introduce the topic to a larger audience, but that doesn't people interested in investing and oil weren't knowledgeable about it long before. I think I proved to reasonable people that it was "spoken about publicly" before 2004. Campbell has been highly visible for much longer back than just 2004 and the orginial theory is decades old.

well--- if all this twisting makes it RIGHT for you... great, i guess that makes our Rev ahead of the rest of the non-scientific world, if you say so, and, (we know, we know) you're always correct.

There you go again, claiming I "twisted" something (when I obviously haven't) and trying to introduce a new term with a claim you’ve yet to support. When was the ignorance of the “non-scientific world” prior to 2004 proved? <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Campbell was appearing on NPR in 1998, spoke to the House of Commons in 1999, had an item published in Foreign Affairs in 2000 and has been publishing a newsletter since Jan 2001. Are all those purely scientific venues? He's been profiled and written about countless times before 2004. Who has spent endless amounts of bandwidth accusing someone else of “bending” and “twisting” things?

but i'm out of gas, and the therapy obviously isn't working for you---

good luck, dilbert.

 Out of something, alright… good luck yourself…