 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2008The Don't Buy Exxon Gasoline Bit
I have heard this silly sh_t twice in the last few days. Aparently an email is going around with the following concept... "You don't buy Exxon Oil. Exxon is forced to lower gas prices... and then to keep up, other companies lower gas prices... " I cannot see Americans working on conjunction with each other on this. It sounds good and is not as stupid as the "don't buy gas on this day" pass-alongs, but then there is the too good to be true part, which is this: Those who want cheaper gas will automatically go to the Exxon as soon as it droped 20 cents... and the cycle continues. Why do people pass along these stupid emails? Better yet, do you ever reply back to the sender who is a family member or friend and say "this is a crock of sh.t?" I am considering it. > Why do people pass along these stupid emails? The irony here is amazing. >> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? > > The irony here is amazing. What's ironic about it? I am not the one passing along these emails about skipping the gas station on May 15th.. or etc. > > > Why do people pass along these stupid emails? > > > > The irony here is amazing. > > What's ironic about it? I am not the one passing along these emails > about skipping the gas station on May 15th.. or etc. You're passing along the stupid e-mail here. "You don't buy Exxon Oil. Exxon is forced to lower gas prices... and then to keep up, other companies lower gas prices... " >> > > Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Exxon is forced to lower gas prices... and then to keep up, other > companies lower gas prices... " Did you not read the entire thing? You see, messages are meant to be read in whole. Read it again fuckwad. > >>> > Why do people pass along these stupid emails? > > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Did you not read the entire thing? You see, messages are meant to be > read in whole. Read it again fuckwad. I read it again. [Why do people pass along these stupid emails? Better yet, do you ever reply back to the sender who is a family member or friend and say "this is a crock of sh.t?"] I am replying back and saying THIS IS A CROCK OF sh.t! Now get off your high horse and realize your command of the English language leaves much to be desired.  Signature"I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying." ~ Oscar Wilde > I read it again. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I am replying back and saying THIS IS A CROCK OF sh.t! I am replying back and saying, "This IS A CROCK OF sh.t!" There is no irony in it, dumbass. The point of the email was displayed to show how silly it was. Not so it could be used. You are selective. > > > Why do people pass along these stupid emails? > > > > The irony here is amazing. > > What's ironic about it? I am not the one passing along these emails > about skipping the gas station on May 15th.. or etc. You're passing along the stupid e-mail here. "You don't buy Exxon Oil. Exxon is forced to lower gas prices... and then to keep up, other companies lower gas prices... " > Why do people pass along these stupid emails? Because 54% of the country is terminally stupid. >> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? > > Because 54% of the country is terminally stupid. Only 54%. ? surely you jest. I'm guessing 4 out of 5. >>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >> >> Because 54% of the country is terminally stupid. > > Only 54%. ? surely you jest. I'm guessing 4 out of 5. Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to avoid being challenged. >>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to avoid >being challenged. cite.... You have been challenged.... SignatureScott in Florida >>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You have been challenged.... The election of GWB - 54% voted for him, +/- a tiny fraction. There's your proof. >>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The election of GWB - 54% voted for him, +/- a tiny fraction. There's your >proof. No, the proof is the 46 percent that voted for the idiot.... Were you one of them........ SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Were you one of them........ "And so, General, I want to thank you for your service. And I appreciate the fact that you really snatched defeat out of the jaws of those who are trying to defeat us in Iraq."-meeting with Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 >>>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >to defeat us in Iraq."-meeting with Army Gen. Ray Odierno, Washington, D.C., >March 3, 2008 ANY time Barry Obama is talking without help of a speech writer is WORSE...... Answer the question.....were you an idiot who was part of the 46 percent? SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > ANY time Barry Obama is talking without help of a speech writer is > WORSE...... I take a 5 month break and you are still as full of sh.t as ever! lol! >>>>>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >I take a 5 month break and you are still as full of sh.t as ever! lol! Oh? Tell me how great your hero Barry is at speaking.... SignatureScott in Florida > I take a 5 month break Where have you been? What else is the same or changed since you took a hiatus? >> I take a 5 month break > > Where have you been? What else is the same or changed since you took a > hiatus? Not much. For some reason I lost interest in NGs back in November. A little drama is that in January my live-in BIL had a partial foot amputation and then up to the knee a few weeks later. He long ago decided to ignore his diabetes, so this was not a big shocker. He just got his prosthetic a couple of weeks ago. It all started with a little blister on the side of his foot just after Christmas. Other than that drama, I have been more focused on my job and working a fair amount of overtime (I am a peds cardiac ICU RN). I have learned a lot in almost two years and there is still so much more to learn. >> Where have you been? What else is the same or changed since you took a >> hiatus? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > prosthetic a couple of weeks ago. It all started with a little blister on > the side of his foot just after Christmas. Got my step father, too. A bad fitting shoe on a trip to Montreal... > Other than that drama, I have been more focused on my job and working a > fair amount of overtime (I am a peds cardiac ICU RN). I have learned a > lot in almost two years and there is still so much more to learn. Peds as in Pediatrics? "Hachiroku ????" Truckdude wrote: >> Other than that drama, I have been more focused on my job and working a >> fair amount of overtime (I am a peds cardiac ICU RN). I have learned a >> lot in almost two years and there is still so much more to learn. > > Peds as in Pediatrics? Yes. Natalie >> ANY time Barry Obama is talking without help of a speech writer is >> WORSE...... >> > I take a 5 month break and you are still as full of sh.t as ever! lol! TRUCKDUDE!!!! How's it going? Weren't you on your way to becoming a nurse or something? "Hachiroku ????" Truckdude wrote: >>> ANY time Barry Obama is talking without help of a speech writer is >>> WORSE...... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Weren't you on your way to becoming a nurse or something? He already is a nurse, so it wasn't that. Natalie > "Hachiroku ????" > Truckdude wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Natalie It's hard to tell the players without a scorecard... >>> ANY time Barry Obama is talking without help of a speech writer is >>> WORSE...... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Weren't you on your way to becoming a nurse or something? I already am one since July '06. >> Weren't you on your way to becoming a nurse or something? >> > I already am one since July '06. So, where the hell ya been? >>The election of GWB - 54% voted for him, +/- a tiny fraction. There's >>your proof. >> > No, the proof is the 46 percent that voted for the idiot.... Damn! This is scary (I posted my response before I read yours! ;) On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:58:11 GMT, hachiroku +O+A+m+/ <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote: >>>The election of GWB - 54% voted for him, +/- a tiny fraction. There's >>>your proof. >>> >> No, the proof is the 46 percent that voted for the idiot.... > >Damn! This is scary (I posted my response before I read yours! ;) Great minds! SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The election of GWB - 54% voted for him, +/- a tiny fraction. There's > your proof. Where's the documentation? You take some off-topic statistic and post it as fact. Who someone voted for is no reflection on their intelligence. And from what you posted this means 46% are dumber than a box of rocks... >>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You take some off-topic statistic and post it as fact. Who someone voted > for is no reflection on their intelligence. Yes it is. Anyone who votes for a booze-damaged illiterate is an idiot. Bush is exactly that. >>>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Yes it is. Anyone who votes for a booze-damaged illiterate is an idiot. Bush >is exactly that. Tell us how great your hero Bary Obama is with words.... On his own....that is. I'm beginning to question his education.... How did he get into college? Was it because of his tan? SignatureScott in Florida >>>>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Was it because of his tan? Late afternoon pattern: Sot hits the bottle again and begins spewing racist bullshit. >>>>>>>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Late afternoon pattern: Sot hits the bottle again and begins spewing > racist bullshit. His actual pattern is that reality sucks for him, so he creates his own. Signature"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert >>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to > avoid being challenged. Cite? >>>>> Why do people pass along these stupid emails? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Cite? Wasn't that the margin for his first election? Maybe I'm off by a percent or two, but it doesn't change the truth of the concept. >>>>> Because 54% of the country is terminally stupid. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Wasn't that the margin for his first election? Maybe I'm off by a percent > or two, but it doesn't change the truth of the concept. I mean the statistic of being terminally stupid. Where's the cite for that? >>>>>> Because 54% of the country is terminally stupid. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I mean the statistic of being terminally stupid. Where's the cite for > that? The "cite" is the choice made by the things who voted for Bush. >>> Wasn't that the margin for his first election? Maybe I'm off by a >>> percent or two, but it doesn't change the truth of the concept. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The "cite" is the choice made by the things who voted for Bush. So, you don't have any reliable sources? Just hearsay and conjecture? >>>> Wasn't that the margin for his first election? Maybe I'm off by a >>>> percent or two, but it doesn't change the truth of the concept. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > So, you don't have any reliable sources? Just hearsay and conjecture? It's so obvious. For example, your president cannot reliably match singular and plural words, something expected of kids in 6th grade or earlier (Cathy can clarify this). Now, I don't know about you, but if I was interviewing a grown man for a job which involved communication, and he couldn't match singular and plural words better than a 6th grader, I'd send him on his way. There was an interesting case here involving exactly that a few years ago. A job candidate sued Kodak for discrimination because they wouldn't promote him to a position which involved writing and public speaking. The guy couldn't write or speak the queen's English like an adult. Same with your president. So, if you would've hired someone like that, you're stupid. Substitute "voted for" instead of "hired" in that sentence, and all becomes clear. >>>>> Wasn't that the margin for his first election? Maybe I'm off by a >>>>> percent or two, but it doesn't change the truth of the concept. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > guy couldn't write or speak the queen's English like an adult. Same with > your president. LOL! I believe he's 'your' President, too! Or have you seceeded from the Union? > So, if you would've hired someone like that, you're stupid. Substitute > "voted for" instead of "hired" in that sentence, and all becomes clear. I didn't vote for him. Him *OR* Reddy Kilowatt... I must be the smartest person here! >>>>>> Wasn't that the margin for his first election? Maybe I'm off by a >>>>>> percent or two, but it doesn't change the truth of the concept. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > LOL! I believe he's 'your' President, too! Or have you seceeded from the > Union? I disowned him, something his family should've done a long time ago. I don't mind a president I don't agree with all the time, but the Republicans never should've propped up this one for public office. In all fairness, he probably not stupid. But, there definitely *is* something wrong with him. Watch what he was like in earlier years: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw4Bhmm22xo&mode=related&search Bush himself may have explained the problem: http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Drugs/story?id=3985919&page=1 >> So, if you would've hired someone like that, you're stupid. Substitute >> "voted for" instead of "hired" in that sentence, and all becomes clear. > > I didn't vote for him. Him *OR* Reddy Kilowatt... > > I must be the smartest person here! Whether YOU hired him or not is irrelevant. A lot of other people did, and it's pathetic that they somehow managed to explain away his defects. >>> A job candidate sued Kodak for discrimination because they wouldn't >>> promote him to a position which involved writing and public speaking. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > don't mind a president I don't agree with all the time, but the > Republicans never should've propped up this one for public office. For about the third time since you came here, you've said something I can agree with. They must have thought Bush would win more votes than McCain 8 years ago. I suppose the strategy paid off in the long run, but what good is winning an election at the expense of the people? I could say something similar about the Clintons here, but I'll wait... > In all fairness, he probably not stupid. But, there definitely *is* > something wrong with him. Watch what he was like in earlier years: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Whether YOU hired him or not is irrelevant. A lot of other people did, and > it's pathetic that they somehow managed to explain away his defects. People explain away Clinton's as well. The only ones that didn't skate were Carter and Ford. Well, Archie Bunker covered Ford: "Hey! The man's doing a helluva job for someone nobody voted for!" >>>> A job candidate sued Kodak for discrimination because they wouldn't >>>> promote him to a position which involved writing and public speaking. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Well, Archie Bunker covered Ford: "Hey! The man's doing a helluva job for > someone nobody voted for!" The Clintons (no apostrophe) don't constantly stumble with language, and you know that. Bush does, any time he hasn't got a script. >> People explain away Clinton's as well. The only ones that didn't skate >> were Carter and Ford. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Clintons (no apostrophe) don't constantly stumble with language, and > you know that. Bush does, any time he hasn't got a script. They just struggle with everything else. >>> People explain away Clinton's as well. The only ones that didn't skate >>> were Carter and Ford. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > They just struggle with everything else. You are unique in that you need to finish every discussion using a shovel. At least you're consistent. >>> The Clintons (no apostrophe) don't constantly stumble with language, >>> and you know that. Bush does, any time he hasn't got a script. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You are unique in that you need to finish every discussion using a shovel. > At least you're consistent. LOL! One *might* get the idea I don't like the Clintons... (One might be correct...) > Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to > avoid being challenged. Formally verified by whom? And on what basis? >> Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to >> avoid being challenged. > > Formally verified by whom? And on what basis? OK - you tell me. What was the margin by which Bush won his first election? Was it 53%? 51%? Whatever it was, the concept is still accurate. >>> Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to >>> avoid being challenged. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > election? Was it 53%? 51%? Whatever it was, the concept is still > accurate. Voting for Bush does not verify your assertion. And in your assertion you made no mention of Bush as the basis. You made a patently false statement that is without any basis, and are asking me to provide the proof that you are an idiot? You do that all by yourself. In the popular vote, Bush seems to have actually lost by a relative small number (at least in 2004), he won through the mechanics of the electoral college. I understand you are pointing to 2000, but I don't recall at this moment if Bush lost the popular vote in '00 or '04, and don't care. I do care that you made a false assertion as if it were fact. >>>> Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to >>>> avoid being challenged. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Voting for Bush does not verify your assertion. Yes it does. Whatever percentage voted for Bush would be the same number a researcher would come up with if it were possible to administer IQ tests to the exact same sample of people who voted. Bush supporters would be at the very bottom on the left side of the IQ bell curve. >>>>> Maybe, but 54% is the only number verified formally, so I used that to >>>>> avoid being challenged. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to the exact same sample of people who voted. Bush supporters would be at > the very bottom on the left side of the IQ bell curve. But I have a team of researchers that could make the same case about those that voted for Gore and Kerry. Your assertion is baseless, factually in error, and absurd. Proving once again to the world that you are an idiot. Do you see how easy this is? I made a mistake once (where you think I made the mistake, but you seem to be alone in that regard) and you hold it up time and time again as a shining example of my ignorance. You provide us with a daily update on your ignorance. "Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <... >I have heard this silly sh_t twice in the last few days. Aparently an email >is going around with the following concept... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am considering it. I just reply with this single link and no other comment: http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/gasout.asp Natalie > I have heard this silly sh_t twice in the last few days. Aparently an > email is going around with the following concept... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am considering it. I saw this. They'll just wholesale it to someone else. > I have heard this silly sh_t twice in the last few days. Aparently an email > is going around with the following concept... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am considering it. not worth the time. 4 things control the amount you pay for fuel, and not one of them can be affected by this. 1. the strength of the dollar. if your dollar is worth a lot you can buy more oil for it. 2. the amount of oil that opac produces. basic law of supply and demand. if they don't make it, the price goes up. 3. government taxes, where i am over 50% of the cost of fuel is government tax. 4. oil company shareholders. they want a good dividend so the oil company makes as much profit as possible on their product. one company only made a 255 million after tax profit for the last half of 2007, i think bp was ~3000 million in profit last year world wide. > 4. oil company shareholders. they want a good dividend so the oil > company makes as much profit as possible on their product. one company > only made a 255 million after tax profit for the last half of 2007, i > think bp was ~3000 million in profit last year world wide. Yeah, BP had a poor year last year. Didn't they sack the CEO? > I have heard this silly sh_t twice in the last few days. Aparently an > email is going around with the following concept... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am considering it. What if you don't buy Exxon/Mobil to begin with? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.