Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by essay on November 5, 2010 at 5:45

that's a nice trollbait title you have for this thread, looks like you caught one. i read the article, still not sure what it has to do with the topic, smells like false advertising to me, although the crack about the poor reaction to cheerleader's thread somewhat makes up for it.

hey guys, who's for a full-on stompdown flamewar sitting pretty on the main page? happy to oblige, as always.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 5, 2010 at 11:01

"that's a nice trollbait title you have for this thread, looks like you caught one."

Awww, look, a compliment. Thank you. I find inspiration for my titles in some of the popular ones I see around here. One of the ways to improve one's writing skills is to use what successful writers have employed.

Now, as usual, I must ask you about your thoughts on the topic of US auto manufacturers making this kind of move. Seriously, isn't it industries' mission to get the best returns for their shareholders?

80)

lol, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 5, 2010 at 12:09

where is here, the main page? seriously, don't you think a more relevant title would have been more appropriate, even if there existed a ng vehicle group?

what i think about the natural gas and automotive manufacturing situation in this country, and particularly in this context, is inherently political, since they are, after all, political footballs, and should probably stay in the political forum. suffice to say there are any number of routes i could take here, but i would love to hear the opinions of others involved with actively participating in this web site about whether or not rules are being followed before i break out the napalm.

also, as usual, i am always willing to help educate liberals to get more betterer at reeding and riting, i'm flattered that you're flattered. or maybe i'm just flatter. fatter? hmm. best not go making any jokes about cheerleader's "wasteline." see what i did there?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on November 5, 2010 at 13:12

It does get a little bit crazy on here at times............ but it's kinda fun to see all these guys take pokes at each other...... but most of the time I don't have a clue what they're talking about..... LOL

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 5, 2010 at 15:07

But....but... you saw fit to post this on the main page recently.

"Natural Gas Ignored in EPA-DOT Proposals"

And you just recently posted on this ...

"Obama Mentions Natural Gas"

Then there's this one used by one of your buds ...

"The Unseen Carbon Agenda ..The EPA wants to take away 7% of U.S. power generation."

Yes, it's inspired me to no end. Sooo, is it better to make the shareholders happy, or would it be better to create jobs here and find a way to use our own ng to wean us off foreign petroleum? I thought that IS shale related, finding ways to promote our product, that is.

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 5, 2010 at 19:25

those other threads you referenced and didn't link for some reason, at least ostensibly contained statements of fact in their titles that originated, in respective order, from the epa, the president of the united states, and some federal regulatory body i can't be arsed to find the name of, followed by mostly rational discussion of the facts given in the referenced material.

(now i know this is complicated, but you're going to have to bear with me, i'm here to inspire rational thought and foster critical thinking skills for fence sitters.)

so, to continue, i could have sworn the thread title was part of the context for the body of the original post. luckily, to remind myself, i included the words "in this context," up there in my previous post, because the magic 8ball told me you would try to pull another sleight of hand routine by taking things out of context. your thread has an obviously inflammatory title which is only vaguely at best related to your questions, many of the answers to which have probably been discussed repeatedly elsewhere.

and then, after intentionally trolling with the thread title , as if just to be sure, you opened the body by crossposting some backhanded snarky remark about a completely unrelated thread that was ill-received because it had absolutely no business being on the main page. you know, kind of like this one.

so, do i really need to explain how natural gas has been largely ignored by the governing donkey party, while being attacked by hard left environmentalist groups, and how automotive manufacturers, their shareholders, and a completely donkey controlled federal government all relate to each other? cause you know i will.

i mean really, i'm not sure what all those people who owned GM stocks and bonds were so upset about, the united autoworkers union seemed to love how it all came out. gee, i wonder what the automotive industry has been running from all these years... couldn't have anything to do with... nah. couldn't be. i'm just being paranoid.

anyway shall we continue the discussion in the political group, we can talk about how they fled the unionized north and came to dixie, and from dixie, to germany, in the case of ford. who the hell even knows what GM is doing nowadays, i sure don't care.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 6, 2010 at 20:05

Ah, so you deem, in your now judicial expertise, that my title isn't fitting for the idea of the topic? And it's "inflammatory?" Well, what other reason would you have for posting an EPA topic on the main page rather than the Pol Group? lol, You don't care? I'll bet you have that IPO date marked on your calendar ready to pounce.

So, show me where nat gas has gotten proper attention from the "other" party. Last I saw, they want us to go with nuke-U-ler power, guess we'll need it to plug in all those electric, 40-mile-range "tin-cans."

Upside to this - we recoup some of the $$$ we've sent China's way.
Downside - Not creating jobs here.

Which way do we, the people, want it?

lol, 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 7, 2010 at 11:54

you were obviously trolling with this thread and got what you wanted. it's also become fairly obvious that this website does not have consistent moderation whatsoever, otherwise why would cheerleader get threads nuked yet this one does not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 7, 2010 at 17:27

awww, How sweet, concerned about Cheerleader's welfare. Hey, talk to ShaleGeo about that bandwith complaint that he's been trying to get resolved for over 2 yrs. now.

So, do you think extension of the tax credit for ngv's will come up for discussion at the behest of the newbies and not-so-newbies? Sure would create some jobs, stimulate the economy. Or will they just say, "Go with our blessings?"


And, I repeat, it IS the mission of most industries to get the most bang for the buck for shareholders.
80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on November 7, 2010 at 19:36

hey obviously politics affects NG, so we have a conflict. i'm all for a reasonable standard, but i got news for ya, this ain't it.

it's interesting that the first thread i post that shows up in the main page in months winds up being used in an attack to justify your behavior. and you didn't even link it.

i also don't need to talk to shalegeo about anything, what you did with this thread is trolling on any forum i frequent, and if it's not even more obvious now i don't know what to say other than any issues you have with another person's complaints are none of my business and have nothing to do with what i'm talking about.

Permalink Reply by sesport on November 7, 2010 at 4:15

Never mind, I think I found my own answer. Folks are going to follow the incentives, aren't they. Seems to me that consumer demand might be taking some "direction" in this matter.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxcenter.shtml

With incentives on ngv's set to expire at the end of this year, and those for various electrics continuing, I guess I'd be looking to see how/where I could cut myself some slack, too, if I were in the market.

Any chance a bunch of "hobbled quackers" might take this up and renew before taking their "migratory" leave?

80) (smiling, but NOT laughing)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on November 7, 2010 at 5:29

Won't $4 gallon gasoline do the same thing without costing the taxpayers any taxes?
Maybe severely cutting the EPA's budget would help as well, huh?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page