The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all.

Post #37,425 by Brandioch 5/3/02 11:10:15 PM Reply	The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all. You still can't do it, can you?
Post #37,429 by Another Scott 5/3/02 11:35:34 PM Reply	It's getting tiresome. :-( Perhaps you and BP should post under new pseudonyms when responding to each other. I fear there's too much bad blood between you two to shed any light through your correspondence. Cheers, Scott.
Post #37,439 by bepatient 5/4/02 1:15:02 AM Reply	Yes it is... ...but funny in its own way. For all of his intelligence he can't seem to understand that my choice is simply not to debate in his style. My initial post was rhetorical. Designed to point out several flaws in the position that our problems in the Middle East are all due to oil. (oversimplistic and definitely not root cause...contributory sure...compromising National Security..please...) His response was to as for specific answers to rhetorical questions. (bog) Take the other issue of my company name. It was an unecessary question. But my lack of an answer to that unecessary question (even though with half a brain and a little memory he should have already known it..since there is only 1 french owned oil/chemical conglomerate) incurs a litany of posts much like the ones above. Constant badgering about things completely unrelated to the discussion. But...apologies to the board...I was being a good boy for a while and not entering discussions where right shift was an option. In the immortal words of Firesign Theater... Back to the Shadows again! There will be no further posts made by me in this thread. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #37,471 by Brandioch 5/4/02 8:43:49 AM Reply	The name of the country, Bill. Or the resource. That's all. My initial post was rhetorical. Designed to point out several flaws in the position that our problems in the Middle East are all due to oil. And the flaw in THAT theory is that you are not able to substantiate ANY of your "rhetorical" questions. Example, I say the moon is made out of rock. You ask if there aren't ANY celestial objects made of cheese. (rhetorical) So I ask you to name ONE that is made of cheese. And THAT is where the discussion is right now. You've asked if another country could control another resource. I've asked what country or what resource. Take the other issue of my company name. It was an unecessary question. Negative. You had made statements that you substatiated by claims of insider knowledge. You also seemed to be claiming that you were a government official interviewing violators AND AT THE SAME TIME a worker in a private company. So, I gave the names of the companies that I had worked for and why I disagreed with your position. That was so that ANYONE could, if interested, verify that I did have the background I claimed. In the field I claimed. While your claim was based upon your claim to secret, revealed wisdom that can not be verified. Verification IS part of any discussion. Constant badgering about things completely unrelated to the discussion. It is related to the discussion. It is an example of your "discussion" method. Simple put, you make claims without substantiation and when pressed for substantiation, you blame your inability to provide facts on me. You have done this before. You did this in this thread. You will do this again. Like I said, I can provide facts and references. You will not/can not. For all of his intelligence he can't seem to understand that my choice is simply not to debate in his style. And my debate style is to support my position with facts and references. Which means that your "debate" style is........?

Welcome to IWETHEY!