Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:39:44 GMT From: "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzlenospam.com> Subject: Re: SaabUSA Biopower survey
"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote in message news:44463eF92s7U1nospamvidual.net... > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:58:11 GMT, Walt Kienzle <wkienzlenospam.com> wrote: >> >> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinznospamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:4422g6FfisU1nospamvidual.net... >>> > OK, so there's a number. yay. I'd call 25% "much", wouldn't you, > Walt? No, I wouldn't. Particularly considering those numbers are only for IMPORTED oil. It doesn't factor in what is produced domestically. Even just looking at imported oil, how can you conclude that 2nd place is in any way "most". Or that half of what is imported from other contries in the Americas "much"? And you should read more closely when you quote me. I said LESS THAN 25%. > Oh, and it's amusing that you say the gummint is keeping it > secret, and then cite a government site to show it. The "secret" part wasn't a cliam on my part, it was an inference based on your prior statement in that you could/didn't come up with any facts to support your claim. > >> (Year to date, November 2005 - the latest numbers available). Most of >> the oil imported by the US actually comes from other countries in the >> Americas. The most comes from North America: Canada and Mexico which >> provide 33%. South America exports another 17% to the US. Africa >> contributes 17% and Europe 9%. Your claim hasn't been true since the oil >> embargo in the 1970's. > > My claim is "much (most?)". I stand by it as your numbers have verified > it. Why the word games, Walt? I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Or maybe I am just a stickler for accuracy. > >> I take your point, but it would be better made if you cited fact instead >> of >> false clichÈ's. If you wanted to identify were most of the US oil >> originates, it would be the Americas, not the Arab world. > > You need to work on your reading comprehension before lecturing me on my > choice of words. I read just fine and didn't see any substantiation for your claims. Just bad rhetoric. > > Now then. Did you have anything of substance on the topic, or is it > just bullshit and wordgames? Sorry to be blunt, but you're taking me to > task for what your inaccurate interpretation of my clear statements is, > not for what I said. > I am taking you to task on false conclusions based on bad and nonexistent facts.
