Oil Below $108

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Less then $38 to go,

First of all, it should be “fewer” not “less”.

Secondly, “then” is used as a time marker or with a sequence of events. The correct word is “than” in a comparative context.

Last but not least, 80 subtracted from 108 is equal to 28. Not 38 as you seem to think.[/quote]

“Less” is used when referring to time or money, unless referring to individual items. This isn’t an individual incident involving $38, it is a generality of any particular $38. Less is therefore correct.

Then vs. than is very simple to distinguish. Based on The Mage’s previous posts, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that he knows the difference and simply made a typo.

Nowhere did The Mage say that he was subtracting 80 from 108. He simply said there was less than $38 to go, which is correct. There is also less than $48 or $58. At 108, there is not less than $28 to go, for subtracting less than 28 from 108 gives a result greater than $80. Saying less than $28 would have indeed been incorrect.

If you want to be a smart alec, please make sure you know what you are talking about.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You do know that oil prices are not the same as gas prices, right?

But with that said, how does the price of oil in Cali differ from the price of oil in, say Ohio?

Right.

The price of gasoline/petrol/fuel for motorized vehicles is higher in California, because of higher taxes.[/quote]

I think we’re paying 50 cents/gallon in taxes nowadays.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You do know that oil prices are not the same as gas prices, right?

But with that said, how does the price of oil in Cali differ from the price of oil in, say Ohio?

Right.

The price of gasoline/petrol/fuel for motorized vehicles is higher in California, because of higher taxes.[/quote]

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/CAavg.asp

You are half right. Prices for gasoline are indeed above the national average in California. But your assertion that it is “because of higher taxes” is only partially correct. If that were the only factor, the delta between the two lines in the graph would be a fixed amount. Seasonal summer demand in that state increased the delta between the national average and the state average. Hence, if there were for some reason seasonably low demand at some time, that could turn to a negative delta and gas prices could technically be lower in California than the national average despite higher taxes.

I’m just saying…

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You do know that oil prices are not the same as gas prices, right?

But with that said, how does the price of oil in Cali differ from the price of oil in, say Ohio?

Right.

The price of gasoline/petrol/fuel for motorized vehicles is higher in California, because of higher taxes.[/quote]

I’m not asking about gasoline prices. I am asking about oil prices.

[quote]lixy wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Less then $38 to go,

First of all, it should be “fewer” not “less”.

Secondly, “then” is used as a time marker or with a sequence of events. The correct word is “than” in a comparative context.

Last but not least, 80 subtracted from 108 is equal to 28. Not 38 as you seem to think.[/quote]

Ok, so I was half asleep when I did the post.

The first line is just anal, the second line, yup, bad angleesh.

The third line… well is is under $38 isn’t it…? Well…? (Damnit.)

[quote]tedro wrote:
“Less” is used when referring to time or money, unless referring to individual items. This isn’t an individual incident involving $38, it is a generality of any particular $38. Less is therefore correct. [/quote]

Strictly speaking, what you are saying is incorrect. 38 dollars is 38 dollars no matter how you look at it. It is counted, not measured. Hence, the correct term to use is “fewer”.

It is very simple to distinguish. Yet, along with “they’re/their/there”, it’s the most common grammatical mistake around.

What’s “perfectly reasonable to assume” is that you didn’t pay close attention to “Mage’s previous posts”. Only yesterday, The_Mage posted the following on another thread:

“Yet they are the ones pushing bigotry, racism, and sexism more then the other party.”

http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/black_boy

True. Now, can you please explain to me how he came up with that $38? I can’t help but feel he made an arithmetic mistake.

Ditto.

[quote]archiewhittaker wrote:

The Mage is the result of Nebraska’s public education program.

[/quote]

Unfortunately true. Better than most of the country, but still sucks donkey balls.

Also it wasn’t until after high school, and some college, that I learned that people who are good at spelling, (yes I should have said skilled at spelling,) do so visually (picturing it in your mind). I always did it auditorily. (I would intentionally mispronounce some words when spelling them because it made it easier for me to sound it out.)

The whole concept kind of blew my mind, but when discussing it with my wife, who is quite skilled at spelling, she thought it was perfectly normal.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Strictly speaking, what you are saying is incorrect. 38 dollars is 38 dollars no matter how you look at it. It is counted, not measured. Hence, the correct term to use is “fewer”.
[/quote]

Strictly speaking, the English language is full of idiosyncracies. Time, distance, and money don’t follow the rule of countable vs. uncountable when it comes to less vs. fewer. They all use less.

Less than 15 minutes to 4:00.
Less than 10 miles to go.
Less than $38 before we hit $80.

His mistake, not mine. I felt it reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt instead of calling the grammar police.

How he came up the number is irrelevant to its usage. The fact remains that it was used correctly, and everything posted was mathematically sound. I cannot say the same for your subtracting of less than 28 from 108 and reaching 80.

[quote]
If you want to be a smart alec, please make sure you know what you are talking about.

Ditto.[/quote]

Pointing out the irony in your post /= incorrectly pointing out the grammar mistakes of another poster in an attempt to discredit them and up yourself.

I have always concidered getting the point across more important the dotting my T’s, and crossing my I’s. (Wait…crossing…dotting…Oh well.)

This is a forum where I treat it like we are talking, not an article being written. I often take a cursory look, and correct some grammar, and improperly placed or spelled words. And yes the spell checker on my browser is my friend.

But I do not have the time to fully edit each post, and do not consider it that important, again, as long as I am getting my point across.

I am fully aware of my deficits, but would rather spend my time getting the facts correct as opposed to making my grammar “pretty”.

After some of the posts I have seen on these forums, I really don’t feel too bad about my grammar. (Including this post.)

[quote]The Mage wrote:
I have always concidered getting the point across more important the dotting my T’s, and crossing my I’s. (Wait…crossing…dotting…Oh well.)

This is a forum where I treat it like we are talking, not an article being written. I often take a cursory look, and correct some grammar, and improperly placed or spelled words. And yes the spell checker on my browser is my friend.

But I do not have the time to fully edit each post, and do not consider it that important, again, as long as I am getting my point across.

I am fully aware of my deficits, but would rather spend my time getting the facts correct as opposed to making my grammar “pretty”.

After some of the posts I have seen on these forums, I really don’t feel too bad about my grammar. (Including this post.)[/quote]

I’m right with you, provided the poster shows that they do grasp the english language, and don’t lazily abbreviate or leave out punctation.

My pet peeve is when one tries to correct another, but they themselves don’t even know what they are talking about.

EDIT: What’s going on with the apostrophes?

[quote]tedro wrote:
The Mage wrote:
I have always concidered getting the point across more important the dotting my T’s, and crossing my I’s. (Wait…crossing…dotting…Oh well.)

This is a forum where I treat it like we are talking, not an article being written. I often take a cursory look, and correct some grammar, and improperly placed or spelled words. And yes the spell checker on my browser is my friend.

But I do not have the time to fully edit each post, and do not consider it that important, again, as long as I am getting my point across.

I am fully aware of my deficits, but would rather spend my time getting the facts correct as opposed to making my grammar “pretty”.

After some of the posts I have seen on these forums, I really don’t feel too bad about my grammar. (Including this post.)

I’m right with you, provided the poster shows that they do grasp the english language, and don’t lazily abbreviate or leave out punctation.

My pet peeve is when one tries to correct another, but they themselves don’t even know what they are talking about.

EDIT: What’s going on with the apostrophes?[/quote]

On this board, the language used is English.

And what is punctation anyway?

[quote]lixy wrote:

And what is punctation anyway?[/quote]

[quote]lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
The Mage wrote:
I have always concidered getting the point across more important the dotting my T’s, and crossing my I’s. (Wait…crossing…dotting…Oh well.)

This is a forum where I treat it like we are talking, not an article being written. I often take a cursory look, and correct some grammar, and improperly placed or spelled words. And yes the spell checker on my browser is my friend.

But I do not have the time to fully edit each post, and do not consider it that important, again, as long as I am getting my point across.

I am fully aware of my deficits, but would rather spend my time getting the facts correct as opposed to making my grammar “pretty”.

After some of the posts I have seen on these forums, I really don’t feel too bad about my grammar. (Including this post.)

I’m right with you, provided the poster shows that they do grasp the english language, and don’t lazily abbreviate or leave out punctation.

My pet peeve is when one tries to correct another, but they themselves don’t even know what they are talking about.

EDIT: What’s going on with the apostrophes?

On this board, the language used is English.

And what is punctation anyway?[/quote]

You’re really on a roll, aren’t you?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
But I guess blaming traders makes a good scapegoat for politicians?

I don’t blame traders in general. I blame one: T. Boone Pickens.

I Don’t buy into his new program for a minute. He single-handedly threw a monkey wrench in the Texas Panhandle’s wind farm plans. But on TV, you hear him talking about getting away from oil. …
[/quote]

I saw a video explaining how this is a land grab by Pickens. I hate crooked businessmen as much as I hate crooked politicians.

[quote]ajcook99 wrote:
archiewhittaker wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You do know that oil prices are not the same as gas prices, right?

But with that said, how does the price of oil in Cali differ from the price of oil in, say Ohio?

Right.

The price of gasoline/petrol/fuel for motorized vehicles is higher in California, because of higher taxes.

http://www.fuelgaugereport.com/CAavg.asp

You are half right. Prices for gasoline are indeed above the national average in California. But your assertion that it is “because of higher taxes” is only partially correct. If that were the only factor, the delta between the two lines in the graph would be a fixed amount. Seasonal summer demand in that state increased the delta between the national average and the state average. Hence, if there were for some reason seasonably low demand at some time, that could turn to a negative delta and gas prices could technically be lower in California than the national average despite higher taxes.

I’m just saying…[/quote]

California also has special formulation which drive the price up.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I saw a video explaining how this is a land grab by Pickens. I hate crooked businessmen as much as I hate crooked politicians.[/quote]

A while back he mentioned it doesn’t work if the world is running on 87 million barrels a day, but we are only pumping 85.

Problem was, and this was pointed out by another expert, the numbers were wrong. We were in fact pumping at least as much as we were using.

You would expect an “oil man” to know that. Once I found out about his plan, suddenly a lot of his statements made sense. He had ulterior financial motives. Kind of like Gore’s ridiculous profits from his little carbon credit scam.

Mexico: we import a lot from them. They are too incompetent to run their fields. What’s next? North American Union needed?


Nother chart. Disaster is coming.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Nother chart. Disaster is coming.

[/quote]

Is this really a bad thing? Mexico isn’t exactly the safest trading partner in the world, either. Importing less oil from then is a good thing, so long as it isn’t replaced with trade from an even less desireable trading partner, which is probably the case. Let’s see Canada’s graph.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
On top of eating my underwear, I’ll quit posting on this forum for a year it ever reaches $80 or below.

You know what to do to help it happen.

No. Please tell us. [/quote]

Inflate your tires McFly!