Gas is gonna go through the roof.....
- Thread starter BrainSellz
- Start date
lol
Now it's becoming clear...
Disagree... Consider the next two statements...
"Fuck you... I hate your guts"
Vs
'your great... I love you so much"
Completely different tone between the two.
There was context in what he said... it's the context of the overall discussion.
Actually what I said was "what I know of your online personality" a very limited statement. Are you assuming I said I know all about you? Or did you just not know the language? Or did you misrepresent my statement on purpose?
Once again... assuming or misrepresenting things, I never claimed to have been watching you for years, show me where I said that. That being said... one of the first threads I came across before I even registered was your "ask an old fart" thread (great thread by the way)
Nevertheless... you seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I mean... either that or your just not understanding the language I'm using.
Oh... by the way, (and I know this is totally late for the whole hemp discussion... it just took me awhile to find the study)
What do you guys think of Hillig & Mahlberg's study on cannabis types?
Basically I believe they're saying that all the drug-type marijuana we smoke is Indica (even what we call sativa is now technically a subtype of indica).
I read this a long time ago and was reminded of it by the hemp discussion. I notice they're (or at least RCC is) also using the word hemp as a neologism as Disco pointed out
Oh yea... and gas is going to go through the roof.
What do you guys think of Hillig & Mahlberg's study on cannabis types?
[SIZE=+2] ABSTRACT [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
[/SIZE]
Cannabinoids are important chemotaxonomic markers unique to Cannabis. Previous studies show that a plant's dry-weight ratio of9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) can be assigned to one of three chemotypes and that alleles BD and BT encode alloenzymes that catalyze the conversion of cannabigerol to CBD and THC, respectively. In the present study, the frequencies of BD and BT in sample populations of 157 Cannabis accessions were determined from CBD and THC banding patterns, visualized by starch gel electrophoresis. Gas chromatography was used to quantify cannabinoid levels in 96 of the same accessions. The data were interpreted with respect to previous analyses of genetic and morphological variation in the same germplasm collection. Two biotypes (infraspecific taxa of unassigned rank) of C. sativa and four biotypes of C. indica were recognized. Mean THC levels and the frequency of BT were significantly higher in C. indica than C. sativa. The proportion of high THC/CBD chemotype plants in most accessions assigned to C. sativa was <25% and in most accessions assigned to C. indica was >25%. Plants with relatively high levels of tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV) and/or cannabidivarin (CBDV) were common only in C. indica. This study supports a two-species concept of Cannabis.
http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/6/966Hillig (2004)used allozyme allele frequencies (excluding BD and BT) to determine that most of the 157 accessions in the Cannabis collection under study derive from two major gene pools that correspond (more or less) to previous circumscriptions of C. indica and C. sativa. The most common allele at each locus was the same for both gene pools, but significantly differed in frequency for 10 of the 17 loci surveyed. All but six accessions were assigned to the indica or sativa gene pool. Six ruderal accessions from central Asia were tentatively assigned to a third ruderalis gene pool. All of the 157 accessions were also assigned to various taxa in accord with previous taxonomic treatments and tested for goodness of fit to the genetic data. Based on these results, a working hypothesis for a taxonomic circumscription of the Cannabis germplasm collection is given in Table 1. This hypothesis represents a synthesis of polytypic treatments of Cannabis by Lamarck (1785)
Basically I believe they're saying that all the drug-type marijuana we smoke is Indica (even what we call sativa is now technically a subtype of indica).
Robert Connel Clarke said:
I read this a long time ago and was reminded of it by the hemp discussion. I notice they're (or at least RCC is) also using the word hemp as a neologism as Disco pointed out
Oh yea... and gas is going to go through the roof.
Gas will "go through the roof" eventually as oil demand outpaces supply.
This is a good thing, as it makes alternative energy much more lucrative.
Naturally, alternative energy sources will be used more and more until all oil is phased out. Firms will invest heavily in nanosolar, wind, geo, hydro, tesla, etc. etc.. because OIL FOR ENERGY IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
The trillion dollar a year energy industry will never collapse, it won't be the end of civilization. The market will take care of it, how long that will take is another story.
Fuck oil, we can do much better for ourselves than that for energy, way better.
This is a good thing, as it makes alternative energy much more lucrative.
Naturally, alternative energy sources will be used more and more until all oil is phased out. Firms will invest heavily in nanosolar, wind, geo, hydro, tesla, etc. etc.. because OIL FOR ENERGY IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
The trillion dollar a year energy industry will never collapse, it won't be the end of civilization. The market will take care of it, how long that will take is another story.
Fuck oil, we can do much better for ourselves than that for energy, way better.
I don't think you quite understand. The price of oil today isn't based on supply and demand. It is based on currency devaluation and speculation. That's the long and short of it. This and much of the economy has decoupled from traditional economic fundamentals and theories. It's a big Neo-Keynesian circle jerk of bullshit. However, the real market will eventually override this FunnyNomics and bring everyone back down to reality.
Oil Expert Yergin: Oil Prices Aren’t Based on Supply and Demand
This industry is not going to collapse entirely, but it will collapse the economy overall if the price keeps inflating. Remember 2008? As long as Bernanke is quantitative easing to infinity and destroying what's left of the dollar it will. It's a matter of when, not if and the more funny money we create the closer it gets.
The price of oil, as with almost every other commodity and asset class, is based on illusion not economic fundamentals. This is unsustainable and will burst.
Last edited:
Um sorry that's not really tone. That's content. To examine tone you don't compare two opposing thoughts or phrases you compare the exact same phrase put slightly differently.
"Fuck you... I hate your guts" is obviously an expression of dislike but tone would be more like Fuck You!!! I hate your guts. The tone example obviously shows much more feeling then the first way.
No there wasn't. The overall discussion is that of gas prices not how I spell my name. There was no context in relation to the overall discussion just in relation to my criticizing mosc0 for incorrectly stating that hemp is ruderalis. Apparently Spastic Gramps see's that as splitting hairs although it isn't. By the definition mosc0 posted, I posted and Gypsy posted. Any type of marijuana can be used as hemp but only certain kinds can be used as medical marijuana. There are breeders who sell thru Gypsy's site and strains available there that use ruderalis. I'm pretty sure they don't want someone who thinks they know it all, to ruin their business, by incorrectly associating ruderalis with plants typically thought of as containing 3% or less THC. Sure Ruderalis is what the russians used. Probably because their climate is more the climate ruderalis evolved for and it's probably all they could get a decent crop from with their short growing season. From a practical business standpoint it would be retarded to use ruderalis that grows maybe 3 feet tall when you can use something that in almost the same time grows 6 times taller. The only sane reason to use ruderalis for hemp is when the climate won't let you grow anything else.
What I'm saying is you don't know me at all despite your claim of having followed my posts. I didn't misrepresent your statement at all. It is you misrepresenting things trying to suggest you know me at all, even in a limited sense.
I can't find it now but I could have sworn in another thread you said something about having followed my wanna ask thread for years.
You claim I'm making assumptions about what you've said and yet I've seen nothing from you indicating what assumptions have been made or you clearing any of them up or correcting any of them. I do see you trying to make it look like I'm assuming things since that's what I've criticized you for. I mean it's a very common practice on this forum that when someone accuses someone of something rather then simply admitting it or denying it they try and turn it back on the person accusing them of the same thing. That's the only thing I've assumed about you. The rest of it there was no need. You made a clear cut statement that you found Spastic Gramps' comment to me as funny and I made a clear cut statement back that if you think that is so funny you're standards for comedy are very low.
Funny, in my neck of the woods it's down 15 cents per gallon to $2.90 from $3.05 2 weeks ago.
stiltokin74
Member
... anyone read "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Oil Age?"
.. it is written by Michael Ruppert. He used to have a site up called "From the Wilderness"
interesting guy with a lot to say about the oil industry among other things.
.. it is written by Michael Ruppert. He used to have a site up called "From the Wilderness"
interesting guy with a lot to say about the oil industry among other things.
I guess only time will tell, but I think everything is gonna be just fine 
kempcat, I believe you, now just calm down...
kempcat, I believe you, now just calm down...
I've always thought of that as emphasis, expression or inflection which certainly relate and contribute to tone. However I would make the argument that content contributes to the "tone of a conversation" which was the intent of my use and accepted as usage. So while I agree you haven't been adding bold, italics, underlining, or Font to add any emphasis, I would say there is still a "tone" to the argument nonetheless, tone that has been established by content as that's all there was.
That was the context I was referring to.
You're correct... I was making an unfounded assumption that you were a level headed, friendly, reasonable person... but it appears I may be wrong.
I didn't misrepresent... I clearly stated...
How can I misrepresent something like that... I didn't claim knowledge of anything other than what I personally know from from reading your posts online. I never asserted that I know anything about you other than what I've read, here.
You know, in retrospect that sounds kinda familiar... You may very well be right, It was awhile ago but I do have a vague memory now that you mention it. I don't believe I made that reference in this particular conversation which is what I meant to refer to.
Actually I asked a three choice question inferring that it was one of three things...
I asked...or
1/ɔr; unstressed ər/
Show Spelled[awr; unstressed er]
–conjunction 1. (used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.
See... I'll explain the language in this first instance of me asking you if you were assuming... or just didn't understand that when I said "what I know" I meant specifically posts of yours that I've read... or if you intentionally misrepresented my use of the phrase "what I know"
I was wondering which of the three it was... I inferred that you were doing one of the three. I still don't know the answer as you choose to ignore my question and cast it as my making a statement that you were assuming. Now I just have to make an educated guess... So I'm assuming that you misunderstood what I meant by "what I know"... I hope that it's clear now that I was referring only to things you've typed online that I have read. Although I guess it's possible that you misrepresented what I said on purpose in an effort to make a weak rhetorical point.
The second question I asked you was also a multiple choice question. I have however already conceded earlier in this post that I believe you are correct and that I did tell you in another thread something to the effect of having followed your wanna ask thread, and have also seen just general posts around the site. So I concede that particular question, you don't need to answer
[quote
I mean it's a very common practice on this forum that when someone accuses someone of something rather then simply admitting it or denying it they try and turn it back on the person accusing them of the same thing.[/quote]
It's also common that people in general do a lot of the things they criticize others for. For instance... I like to have long winded, drawn out, pedantic conversations that go off on a tangent... that's me... I don't complain when others do it (although I might laugh).
My comedy standards are my own... thank you for your commentary.
Question... Do you realize he could make the same comment about me right now? That I'm making a mountain out of a molehill with our little dialog here. I am... I admit it.
So, has anyone seen gas prices lately?
Nationally, + 3 cents in the last two weeks.
Here's a good chart that looks at the relative inflation from last year to now.
Oil (WTI) is up 21.5% and it's going to keep going as long as we are devaluing the reserve currency.
If you want to see why Egypt and soon to be (IMO) most of the third world is rioting you can look at the top of the chart. Many commodities are up 50%+ year to year and it's only going to keep going up. The developed world will be next to take to the streets.
Bernanke's hubris is going to wreck the world. One look at the rice chart and the rice hoarding by the third world tells you all you need to know.
Oil (WTI) is up 21.5% and it's going to keep going as long as we are devaluing the reserve currency.
If you want to see why Egypt and soon to be (IMO) most of the third world is rioting you can look at the top of the chart. Many commodities are up 50%+ year to year and it's only going to keep going up. The developed world will be next to take to the streets.
Bernanke's hubris is going to wreck the world. One look at the rice chart and the rice hoarding by the third world tells you all you need to know.
Well you might have always thought of it as something but just because you think something is or isn't something doesn't mean you are correct.
No you said context of the overall discussion. The overall discussion is gas prices, not my name or how I spell it. Apparently you have no clue what the conversation is about. Of course that's pretty obvious by the content of your contributions.
No you never mentioned specific traits until now so these are all new unfounded assumptions. The unfounded assumption I'm talking about is your suggestion you know me at all, even in a "limited" sense. Like right here you are making the false assumption that I might not be level headed, friendly or reasonable simply because I'm not just accepting everything you say. I have noticed in other discussions you were much friendlier, less opinionated, less snarky and overall much less of a prick when I was in agreement with you. But woah let someone say something against you and you transform into this whiney little bitch that keeps dragging irrelevent conversation on and then accuses everyone else of beating a dead horse.
It's misrepresentation because it implies you have knowledge of me that you don't have. There is nothing that qualifies you as being able to gleen a person's personality from what they say. I could be in a bad mood at a time I write something and that post might reflect it. Someone reading that post might assume that is who I am when in fact it's just how I was, at a moment in time, that had nothing to do with the person making the assumption. You've already made it clear in a previous backpeddling that you haven't been following me for years. Yet you assume you know me, from posts I've written to others? Psychiatrists with degrees from medical school and who have spent years talking to patients on a regular basis and they can't tell you what a person's personality is for certain. Yet you, the wonder stoner, seem to think you can glance at a few posts and know enough to speculate on what motivates a person
Wow so now you're saying you aren't sure of what you've said. Hopefully that means you will now fully back down from acting like you know people based on posts you've read in the past. I mean if you can't even keep track of what you've said how can you reasonably expect anyone to think you capable of judging anything, let alone something as complex as human personality?
Actually I asked a three choice question inferring that it was one of three things...
I asked...
Well actually I answered you and pretty clearly ("you haven't a clue about my online personality if you haven't talked to me personally every day for years...") but you're refusing to accept that that was my answer to your question. There's no misrepresentation there, I'm specifically telling you that you don't know me if you haven't personally talked to me. There's nothing there suggesting you were talking about anything other then posts, I'm telling you it takes a hell of alot more then skimming over posts to know someone, even in a limited sense. Now if you are too dense to recognize that as a pretty specific answer to your question well I can't help you there's no cure for ignorance.
So? Relevence? Are we now going to start discussing random things people in general do?
You're welcome, now see if you had just said this intially rather then trying to imply you know me at all, limited or otherwise, we could have avoid all the back and forth of the last several days.
Yeah I realize that. It's irrelevent in my opinion but yes I realize that. You did notice he was telling both of us we're beating a dead horse in post #361 didn't you?
just a matter of time before that bump comes to a head.....
Seriously guys? It was a stupid joke. Thank you HK for pointing out the correct information.
Indeed. Kicking the can down the road only works until you run out of road.
Is it all Bernanke in your opinion or do you see the hand of commodity speculators in it too? I heard a couple blurbs about this here and there through the Egypt story...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-dicker/food-commodity-speculatio_b_815949.html
Somewhere I heard that there's more money invested in wheat futures than there is the wheat itself to be bought and sold.
http://triplecrisis.com/food-price-volatility/
I won't quote parts of it but this piece from Bloomberg on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's progress on this is interesting... sounds like it's kind of stalled right now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...de-cftc-with-dodd-frank-deadline-looming.html
They can't agree on position limits (among other things) from what I gather.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-dicker/food-commodity-speculatio_b_815949.html
Somewhere I heard that there's more money invested in wheat futures than there is the wheat itself to be bought and sold.
http://triplecrisis.com/food-price-volatility/
I won't quote parts of it but this piece from Bloomberg on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's progress on this is interesting... sounds like it's kind of stalled right now.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...de-cftc-with-dodd-frank-deadline-looming.html
They can't agree on position limits (among other things) from what I gather.
It's the commodity speculators at the massive Wall Street banks who are doing the actual trading. They are pulling the trigger that is actually sending the prices of commodities higher. However, Bernanke is supplying them with the liquidity to do it via multi-billion dollar POMO injections to the Primary Dealers everyday. The actual traders are just employed gambling addicts. Lemmings doing their job IMO.
He and the Federal Reserve System is solely responsible for the currency devaluation part of the equation. I don't know if the world can stand QE3 and mark my words it is coming. Debasing the currency is a weapon of mass destruction and even Keynes would agree. Financial terrorism at it's best.
Too little to late maybe?
We'll just have to wait and watch the show.
He and the Federal Reserve System is solely responsible for the currency devaluation part of the equation. I don't know if the world can stand QE3 and mark my words it is coming. Debasing the currency is a weapon of mass destruction and even Keynes would agree. Financial terrorism at it's best.
The problem with this is he is destroying the world's reserve currency. Not only will he ruin us, but he'll ruin everyone else. The Third World will obviously go first because they are the poorest and have less to loot before they start starving and revolting. When the developed world is finally bled dry we will take the streets in revolution too. Given what I've seen the US Banana Republic will be the last to figure out what is going on. We are too hypnotized with the stock market exploding and iPads.
Too little to late maybe?
We'll just have to wait and watch the show.
