In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

    > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:58:13 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:06:49 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:51:56 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >> >Really, before the war the was the great cry that people would go
    > >> >> >> >starving and that the oil fields (Iraq's income source) would be set
    > >> >> >> >afire... this has not happened.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> What the hell news are you watching????
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> There are constant attacks on pipelines and refineries to the point
    > >> >> >> where bugger all oil is being produced at all,
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >This is just no true, they produce and send off more oil today, then
    > >> >> >prior to the war. Again, no fields were set afire, like was done in
    > >> >> >Kuwait.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >But wait, maybe your deliberately vague statement "bugger all" means
    > >> >> >this:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >>http://english.daralhayat.com/busine...0041021-bbdc64
    > >> >> >c9-
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Great, now do a google search for iraq, oil, pre-war levels, and you
    > >> >> will find stuff like this:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20....html?from=sto
    > >> >> ryr
    > >> >> hs&
    > >> >> oneclick=true
    > >> >>
    > >> >> So, a year and a half after the invasion,
    > >> >
    > >> >Did you deliberately find an article that is dated (March 2004) to
    > >> >conform to your desires, and then represent it as "a year and a half
    > >> >after the invasion" ? Was that what you were trying to do ?
    > >> >
    > >> >Shame on you for your deliberate deceit.
    > >>
    > >> BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!
    > >>
    > >> Shame on ME!!!
    > >>
    > >> This is the search I did, and that was the first article:
    > >> http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+...e%2Dwar+levels
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Here is a current one from the BBC:
    > >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3236304.stm
    > >
    > >Sorry, I do NOT accept the values shown there for pre-war levels of
    > >2.8/bbl/day production.
    >
    > Are you going to withdraw your accusation of "deliberate deceit", or
    > not?

No, you posted an article from March 2004 and tried to represent it as
Oct 2004.

    >
    > >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
    > >
    > > During 2003, Iraqi oil production averaged 1.33 million bbl/d, down
    > >from 2.04 million bbl/d in 2002, 2.45 million bbl/d in 2001, and 2.69
    > >million bbl/d in 2000. Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last
    > >few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58 million
    > >bbl/d in January 2003, just before the war. As of early March 2004,
    > >Iraqi production (on a net basis) had reached perhaps 2.2 million
    > >bbl/d, with "gross" production (including reinjection) of around 2.4
    > >million bbl/d. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its oil output has
    > >not been constrained by OPEC quotas since it resumed oil exports in
    > >December 1996.
    >
    > And then the next line is:
    >
    > "Prior to the latest war, oil industry experts generally assessed
    > Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-3.0
    > million bbl/d, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million
    > bbl/d (including smuggled oil)."


Good grief, potential "CAPACITY" is not what is produced.

The numbers I listed are from a U.S. reporting agency that commodity
markets worldwide rely on.


    >
    > 2.8 - 3.0 million... how about that!!! Those figures are consistent
    > with the BBCs!

No, they are not.


    >
    > Oh you silly, silly sausage, Jay.

Your pathetic.

jay
Sat Oct 30, 2004
mailto:[email protected]



    > You really ought to read the
    > articles you quote!
    > ---
    > DFM

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:14:25 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:58:13 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:06:49 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:51:56 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >Really, before the war the was the great cry that people would go
    >> >> >> >> >starving and that the oil fields (Iraq's income source) would be set
    >> >> >> >> >afire... this has not happened.
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> What the hell news are you watching????
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> There are constant attacks on pipelines and refineries to the point
    >> >> >> >> where bugger all oil is being produced at all,
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >This is just no true, they produce and send off more oil today, then
    >> >> >> >prior to the war. Again, no fields were set afire, like was done in
    >> >> >> >Kuwait.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >But wait, maybe your deliberately vague statement "bugger all" means
    >> >> >> >this:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >>http://english.daralhayat.com/busine...0041021-bbdc64
    >> >> >> >c9-
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Great, now do a google search for iraq, oil, pre-war levels, and you
    >> >> >> will find stuff like this:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20....html?from=sto
    >> >> >> ryr
    >> >> >> hs&
    >> >> >> oneclick=true
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> So, a year and a half after the invasion,
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Did you deliberately find an article that is dated (March 2004) to
    >> >> >conform to your desires, and then represent it as "a year and a half
    >> >> >after the invasion" ? Was that what you were trying to do ?
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Shame on you for your deliberate deceit.
    >> >>
    >> >> BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!
    >> >>
    >> >> Shame on ME!!!
    >> >>
    >> >> This is the search I did, and that was the first article:
    >> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+...e%2Dwar+levels
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Here is a current one from the BBC:
    >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3236304.stm
    >> >
    >> >Sorry, I do NOT accept the values shown there for pre-war levels of
    >> >2.8/bbl/day production.
    >>
    >> Are you going to withdraw your accusation of "deliberate deceit", or
    >> not?
    >No, you posted an article from March 2004 and tried to represent it as
    >Oct 2004.

No I did not. I never said that article was from Oct 2004!!!

In any case, the situation has not changed a great deal. Something
backed up by the BBC article, which you can't accept.

    >> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
    >> >
    >> > During 2003, Iraqi oil production averaged 1.33 million bbl/d, down
    >> >from 2.04 million bbl/d in 2002, 2.45 million bbl/d in 2001, and 2.69
    >> >million bbl/d in 2000. Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last
    >> >few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58 million
    >> >bbl/d in January 2003, just before the war. As of early March 2004,
    >> >Iraqi production (on a net basis) had reached perhaps 2.2 million
    >> >bbl/d, with "gross" production (including reinjection) of around 2.4
    >> >million bbl/d. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its oil output has
    >> >not been constrained by OPEC quotas since it resumed oil exports in
    >> >December 1996.
    >>
    >> And then the next line is:
    >>
    >> "Prior to the latest war, oil industry experts generally assessed
    >> Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-3.0
    >> million bbl/d, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million
    >> bbl/d (including smuggled oil)."
    >Good grief, potential "CAPACITY" is not what is produced.

For Christ's sake, Jay, it DOES NOT SAY "potential capacity"!!!!!!
READ THE ARTICLE!!!

    >The numbers I listed are from a U.S. reporting agency that commodity
    >markets worldwide rely on.

And media reports too, such as the highly influencial BBC.

    >>
    >> 2.8 - 3.0 million... how about that!!! Those figures are consistent
    >> with the BBCs!
    >No, they are not.

Yes they are! READ!

    >>
    >> Oh you silly, silly sausage, Jay.
    >Your pathetic.

When you learn to read, reason, and write clearly, I will stop
reffering to you as a silly sausage, but until then I cannot take you
seriously.
---
DFM

In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

    > On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:14:25 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:58:13 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:06:49 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:51:56 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    > >> >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> >Really, before the war the was the great cry that people would go
    > >> >> >> >> >starving and that the oil fields (Iraq's income source) would be
    > set
    > >> >> >> >> >afire... this has not happened.
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> What the hell news are you watching????
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> There are constant attacks on pipelines and refineries to the
    > >> >> >> >> point
    > >> >> >> >> where bugger all oil is being produced at all,
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >This is just no true, they produce and send off more oil today, then
    > >> >> >> >prior to the war. Again, no fields were set afire, like was done in
    > >> >> >> >Kuwait.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >But wait, maybe your deliberately vague statement "bugger all" means
    > >> >> >> >this:
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >>>>http://english.daralhayat.com/busine...cle-20041021-b
    > >> >> >> >>bdc64
    > >> >> >> >c9-
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Great, now do a google search for iraq, oil, pre-war levels, and you
    > >> >> >> will find stuff like this:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...358.html?from=
    > >> >> >> sto
    > >> >> >> ryr
    > >> >> >> hs&
    > >> >> >> oneclick=true
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> So, a year and a half after the invasion,
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Did you deliberately find an article that is dated (March 2004) to
    > >> >> >conform to your desires, and then represent it as "a year and a half
    > >> >> >after the invasion" ? Was that what you were trying to do ?
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >Shame on you for your deliberate deceit.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Shame on ME!!!
    > >> >>
    > >> >> This is the search I did, and that was the first article:
    > >> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+...e%2Dwar+levels
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Here is a current one from the BBC:
    > >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3236304.stm
    > >> >
    > >> >Sorry, I do NOT accept the values shown there for pre-war levels of
    > >> >2.8/bbl/day production.
    > >>
    > >> Are you going to withdraw your accusation of "deliberate deceit", or
    > >> not?
    > >
    > >No, you posted an article from March 2004 and tried to represent it as
    > >Oct 2004.
    >
    > No I did not. I never said that article was from Oct 2004!!!
    >
    > In any case, the situation has not changed a great deal. Something
    > backed up by the BBC article, which you can't accept.
    >
    > >> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
    > >> >
    > >> > During 2003, Iraqi oil production averaged 1.33 million bbl/d, down
    > >> >from 2.04 million bbl/d in 2002, 2.45 million bbl/d in 2001, and 2.69
    > >> >million bbl/d in 2000. Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last
    > >> >few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58 million
    > >> >bbl/d in January 2003, just before the war. As of early March 2004,
    > >> >Iraqi production (on a net basis) had reached perhaps 2.2 million
    > >> >bbl/d, with "gross" production (including reinjection) of around 2.4
    > >> >million bbl/d. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its oil output has
    > >> >not been constrained by OPEC quotas since it resumed oil exports in
    > >> >December 1996.
    > >>
    > >> And then the next line is:
    > >>
    > >> "Prior to the latest war, oil industry experts generally assessed
    > >> Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-3.0
    > >> million bbl/d, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million
    > >> bbl/d (including smuggled oil)."
    > >
    > >
    > >Good grief, potential "CAPACITY" is not what is produced.
    >
    > For Christ's sake, Jay, it DOES NOT SAY "potential capacity"!!!!!!
    > READ THE ARTICLE!!!

Doofuss !

Quote:

"Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last
few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58
million"

"PEAKING AT AROUND 2.58", where is the 2.8-3.0 million?????

These are the numbers! Not sustainable CAPACITY!!

Do you drive a car ? Is there a difference between the speed which
your car can sustain and the actual average speed you drive ?

    >
    > >The numbers I listed are from a U.S. reporting agency that commodity
    > >markets worldwide rely on.
    >
    > And media reports too, such as the highly influencial BBC.

Lou Dobbs: "...and this Friday the BBC will be releasing THE oil
production numbers'... comical.....

    >
    > >>
    > >> 2.8 - 3.0 million... how about that!!! Those figures are consistent
    > >> with the BBCs!
    > >
    > >No, they are not.
    >
    > Yes they are! READ!
    >
    > >>
    > >> Oh you silly, silly sausage, Jay.
    > >
    > >Your pathetic.
    >
    > When you learn to read, reason, and write clearly, I will stop
    > reffering to you as a silly sausage,

How you characterize me is of no importance, but a reflection of your
character, surely.

jay
Sun Oct 31, 2004
mailto:[email protected]


    > but until then I cannot take you
    > seriously.
    > ---
    > DFM

Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BDA57ED0.22483%[email protected]>...
    > in article [email protected], PJ O'Donovan at
    > [email protected] wrote on 27/10/04 15:21:
    >
    > > Personally, I always advocate that this thing called government should
    > > just stay out of the way. Let the private sector address it.
    >
    >
    > Are you aware that about half the medical research in the US

I doubt it considering that the NIH contributed medical research
grants amounting to $973 million so far this year while the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, a single non government research
organization gavce out $1.2 billion accosding to a
web perusal.

PJ O'Donovan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Are you aware that about half the medical research in the US
    > I doubt it considering that the NIH contributed medical research grants
    > amounting to $973 million so far this year while the Howard Hughes Medical
    > Institute, a single non government research organization gavce out $1.2
    > billion accosding to a web perusal.

Does that include research conducted at NIH's various (and very large)
facilities?

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 04:58:42 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:14:25 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:58:13 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:06:49 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:51:56 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Deep Frayed
    >> >> >> >> >Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:03:07 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> >Really, before the war the was the great cry that people would go
    >> >> >> >> >> >starving and that the oil fields (Iraq's income source) would be
    >> set
    >> >> >> >> >> >afire... this has not happened.
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> What the hell news are you watching????
    >> >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >> There are constant attacks on pipelines and refineries to the
    >> >> >> >> >> point
    >> >> >> >> >> where bugger all oil is being produced at all,
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >This is just no true, they produce and send off more oil today, then
    >> >> >> >> >prior to the war. Again, no fields were set afire, like was done in
    >> >> >> >> >Kuwait.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >But wait, maybe your deliberately vague statement "bugger all" means
    >> >> >> >> >this:
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> >>>>http://english.daralhayat.com/busine...cle-20041021-b
    >> >> >> >> >>bdc64
    >> >> >> >> >c9-
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Great, now do a google search for iraq, oil, pre-war levels, and you
    >> >> >> >> will find stuff like this:
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...358.html?from=
    >> >> >> >> sto
    >> >> >> >> ryr
    >> >> >> >> hs&
    >> >> >> >> oneclick=true
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> So, a year and a half after the invasion,
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >Did you deliberately find an article that is dated (March 2004) to
    >> >> >> >conform to your desires, and then represent it as "a year and a half
    >> >> >> >after the invasion" ? Was that what you were trying to do ?
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >Shame on you for your deliberate deceit.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAHAHAHHAHAHHA!!!!
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Shame on ME!!!
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> This is the search I did, and that was the first article:
    >> >> >> http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+...e%2Dwar+levels
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Here is a current one from the BBC:
    >> >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3236304.stm
    >> >> >
    >> >> >Sorry, I do NOT accept the values shown there for pre-war levels of
    >> >> >2.8/bbl/day production.
    >> >>
    >> >> Are you going to withdraw your accusation of "deliberate deceit", or
    >> >> not?
    >> >
    >> >No, you posted an article from March 2004 and tried to represent it as
    >> >Oct 2004.
    >>
    >> No I did not. I never said that article was from Oct 2004!!!
    >>
    >> In any case, the situation has not changed a great deal. Something
    >> backed up by the BBC article, which you can't accept.
    >>
    >> >> >http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html
    >> >> >
    >> >> > During 2003, Iraqi oil production averaged 1.33 million bbl/d, down
    >> >> >from 2.04 million bbl/d in 2002, 2.45 million bbl/d in 2001, and 2.69
    >> >> >million bbl/d in 2000. Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last
    >> >> >few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58 million
    >> >> >bbl/d in January 2003, just before the war. As of early March 2004,
    >> >> >Iraqi production (on a net basis) had reached perhaps 2.2 million
    >> >> >bbl/d, with "gross" production (including reinjection) of around 2.4
    >> >> >million bbl/d. Although Iraq is a member of OPEC, its oil output has
    >> >> >not been constrained by OPEC quotas since it resumed oil exports in
    >> >> >December 1996.
    >> >>
    >> >> And then the next line is:
    >> >>
    >> >> "Prior to the latest war, oil industry experts generally assessed
    >> >> Iraq's sustainable production capacity at no higher than about 2.8-3.0
    >> >> million bbl/d, with net export potential of around 2.3-2.5 million
    >> >> bbl/d (including smuggled oil)."
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >Good grief, potential "CAPACITY" is not what is produced.
    >>
    >> For Christ's sake, Jay, it DOES NOT SAY "potential capacity"!!!!!!
    >> READ THE ARTICLE!!!
    >Doofuss !
    >Quote:
    > "Iraqi monthly oil output increased in the last
    > few months of 2002 and into early 2003, peaking at around 2.58
    > million"
    >"PEAKING AT AROUND 2.58", where is the 2.8-3.0 million?????

Perhaps it was a 2.8 million at another time. Did ya think of that???

Don't you think there would be bells and whistles going off if they
managed to actually reach this target? Given the state of the supply
of world oil, I suspect so.

    >These are the numbers! Not sustainable CAPACITY!!
    >Do you drive a car ? Is there a difference between the speed which
    >your car can sustain and the actual average speed you drive ?

No, I don't drive a car, and can't fathom comparing two things as
distantly related..

    >> >The numbers I listed are from a U.S. reporting agency that commodity
    >> >markets worldwide rely on.
    >>
    >> And media reports too, such as the highly influencial BBC.
    >Lou Dobbs: "...and this Friday the BBC will be releasing THE oil
    >production numbers'... comical.....
    >>
    >> >>
    >> >> 2.8 - 3.0 million... how about that!!! Those figures are consistent
    >> >> with the BBCs!
    >> >
    >> >No, they are not.
    >>
    >> Yes they are! READ!
    >>
    >> >>
    >> >> Oh you silly, silly sausage, Jay.
    >> >
    >> >Your pathetic.
    >>
    >> When you learn to read, reason, and write clearly, I will stop
    >> reffering to you as a silly sausage,
    >How you characterize me is of no importance, but a reflection of your
    >character, surely.

Jay, you characterise yourself. I just play on what you say.
---
DFM

Earl Evleth <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<BDA679C6.22748%[email protected]>...
    > in article [email protected], PJ O'Donovan at
    > [email protected] wrote on 28/10/04 2:59:
    >

    >>> Maybe so, but then we had the collective will as a nation to ban
slavery..
    >>> ..without resorting to a civil war.

    > > A myth.
    > >
    > > The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is,
    > > further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery
    > > and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty.
    > >
    > > Karl Marx- Die Presse 10/25/1861
    >
    >
    > I did not know you were a marxist!
    >
I am not discriminatory in considering political ideology when one
articulates words of wisdom.

Here are a couple more off the top of my head from a couple of your
deities from the left:

"He who has the guns has the Power": Chairman Mao

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the
support of Paul": George Bernard Shaw