|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 10, 2014 16:09:50 GMT -8
"Denys(sic) science"? I think not. I just don't fall for bad science. Yes, denys. I see no reason to follow convention and write denies. Waste of a keystroke. I don't care what you do. I quoted you and had to add "(sic)" because that is how I roll I didn't want to quote you and change your letters or leave it wrong and be thought to not know the difference. Keystrokes are cheap...much cheaper for some.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 10, 2014 16:12:37 GMT -8
Yes, denys. I see no reason to follow convention and write denies. Waste of a keystroke. I don't care what you do. I quoted you and had to add "(sic)" because that is how I roll You should have noticed before. Been doing it since college, which was long ago.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 10, 2014 16:14:26 GMT -8
I don't care what you do. I quoted you and had to add "(sic)" because that is how I roll You should have noticed before. Been doing it since college, which was long ago. Now I have caused you to spend all those saved keystrokes, earned one at a time not writing "Denies", on defending your practice. I feel kinda bad. Go Aztecs. (I thought I would write something upon which we could agree)
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 10, 2014 16:15:26 GMT -8
Don't do that. I enjoy educating you.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 10, 2014 16:17:44 GMT -8
Don't do that. I enjoy educating you. Telling me you type "denys" instead of "denies" to save a keystoke, is not educating me. It is an attempt to uneducate me.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 10, 2014 18:18:48 GMT -8
Everything I post is to educate you.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 11, 2014 12:01:27 GMT -8
I am not particularly against Keystone, not particularly for it. But for you, or Jodi Miller (whomever that is), to believe it would affect American gasoline prices by one cent is completely asinine - sorry to burst that bubble. Well, so you say, but I don't see any supporting data. You may be right, you may be wrong, but am I supposed to just take your word for it? (Oh, yes. By the way, I read you entire post, what there was of it, despite the egregious grammatical error contained therein. "Whomever" should be "whoever." The correct word, whoever, is the subject of the verb "is." The words whom and whomever, if used correctly, are objects, not subjects. Example: To whom it may concern. Whom is the object of the preposition to in my example. I'll leave it to others to decide which is worse, misspelling a famous name that is nevertheless not a common one, or using an objective case word where a nominative is required. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jul 11, 2014 13:33:18 GMT -8
I am not particularly against Keystone, not particularly for it. But for you, or Jodi Miller (whomever that is), to believe it would affect American gasoline prices by one cent is completely asinine - sorry to burst that bubble. Well, so you say, but I don't see any supporting data. You may be right, you may be wrong, but am I supposed to just take your word for it? (Oh, yes. By the way, I read you entire post, what there was of it, despite the egregious grammatical error contained therein. "Whomever" should be "whoever." The correct word, whoever, is the subject of the verb "is." The words whom and whomever, if used correctly, are objects, not subjects. Example: To whom it may concern. Whom is the object of the preposition to in my example. I'll leave it to others to decide which is worse, misspelling a famous name that is nevertheless not a common one, or using an objective case word where a nominative is required. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2014 13:57:50 GMT -8
Well, so you say, but I don't see any supporting data. You may be right, you may be wrong, but am I supposed to just take your word for it? (Oh, yes. By the way, I read you entire post, what there was of it, despite the egregious grammatical error contained therein. "Whomever" should be "whoever." The correct word, whoever, is the subject of the verb "is." The words whom and whomever, if used correctly, are objects, not subjects. Example: To whom it may concern. Whom is the object of the preposition to in my example. I'll leave it to others to decide which is worse, misspelling a famous name that is nevertheless not a common one, or using an objective case word where a nominative is required. AzWm Maybe he has taken up the Aztec70 habit of saving a keystroke here and there. I know I do that from tme to tim.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 11, 2014 15:37:36 GMT -8
Maybe he has taken up the Aztec70 habit of saving a keystroke here and there. I know I do that from tme to tim. Nah, William just wanted to be snotty grammar police, and mispelled a word in his rant. Very funny.
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 11, 2014 15:39:12 GMT -8
I am not particularly against Keystone, not particularly for it. But for you, or Jodi Miller (whomever that is), to believe it would affect American gasoline prices by one cent is completely asinine - sorry to burst that bubble. Well, so you say, but I don't see any supporting data. You may be right, you may be wrong, but am I supposed to just take your word for it? (Oh, yes. By the way, I read you entire post, what there was of it, despite the egregious grammatical error contained therein. "Whomever" should be "whoever." The correct word, whoever, is the subject of the verb "is." The words whom and whomever, if used correctly, are objects, not subjects. Example: To whom it may concern. Whom is the object of the preposition to in my example. I'll leave it to others to decide which is worse, misspelling a famous name that is nevertheless not a common one, or using an objective case word where a nominative is required. AzWm Total fail.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 11, 2014 15:59:09 GMT -8
Back on track.
Keystone has nothing to do with helping our economy in the long run. All of the oil is destined for export. Always was. Always will.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2014 16:15:53 GMT -8
Back on track.
Keystone has nothing to do with helping our economy in the long run. All of the oil is destined for export. Always was. Always will. Further evidence that you do not understand economics. How many different ways must this issue be explained to so of you yahoos before it sinks in. Oil independence and the concept of fungible commodities are pretty simple ideas.
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 11, 2014 18:25:08 GMT -8
Well, so you say, but I don't see any supporting data. You may be right, you may be wrong, but am I supposed to just take your word for it? (Oh, yes. By the way, I read you entire post, what there was of it, despite the egregious grammatical error contained therein. "Whomever" should be "whoever." The correct word, whoever, is the subject of the verb "is." The words whom and whomever, if used correctly, are objects, not subjects. Example: To whom it may concern. Whom is the object of the preposition to in my example. I'll leave it to others to decide which is worse, misspelling a famous name that is nevertheless not a common one, or using an objective case word where a nominative is required. AzWm Okay, I'm throwing in the towel. Let's declare an armistice. AzWm
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 14, 2014 9:49:58 GMT -8
edit: deleted comment
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jul 14, 2014 9:57:13 GMT -8
Back on track.
Keystone has nothing to do with helping our economy in the long run. All of the oil is destined for export. Always was. Always will. Further evidence that you do not understand economics. How many different ways must this issue be explained to so of you yahoos before it sinks in. Oil independence and the concept of fungible commodities are pretty simple ideas. I understand economics, etc. Please explain how exporting Canadian oil to Japan has anything to do with Oil independence in the U.S. Try to do it without name calling.
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 14, 2014 10:23:08 GMT -8
Further evidence that you do not understand economics. How many different ways must this issue be explained to so of you yahoos before it sinks in. Oil independence and the concept of fungible commodities are pretty simple ideas. I understand economics, etc. Please explain how exporting Canadian oil to Japan has anything to do with Oil independence in the U.S. Try to do it without name calling. Can't do it! Hard not to name call and exceptionally hard to get through. If you can't understand how world markets work, I am wasting my time. Oil will find its way to where the demand is and what can vary is the price.
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Jul 25, 2014 14:03:16 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 25, 2014 14:57:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 25, 2014 15:33:42 GMT -8
Build the Pipeline and it becomes moot.
|
|