Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

Domestic Crude oil Production (Thousand Barrels per Day)

Current Week (10/15/21) 11,300
Year Ago (10/16/20) 9,900

Four-Week Averages Week Ending (10/15/21) 11,275
Four-Week Averages Week Ending (10/16/20) 10,525

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/pdf/table1.pdf

I made no assumptions nor expressed any opinion about the facts that I posted.

I did. You have poor reading comprehension and post replies to things that were never said routinely.

You're playing games moving goalposts.  The first part of your claim referred to the first half of the year.  Oil production is less during that period.  Then you select one particular week in the second half of the year to make your point which is bogus anyway because you're comparing a Covid period last year with the current period.  Of course, it's more now.  The country was shut down last year at this time.  The figures are distorted because of that.

The point is that because of Biden, America is producing less oil than we did under the last administration when we were independent.  Biden's bias against oil is reducing production.  You're trying to have it both ways trying to convince people that Biden is not putting a damper on production.  Republicans and Independents don't believe that.  Compare 2021 figures with 2019 figures to get to see how much production has really gone down.   

[Alan Klein]

Other than the nonexistent XL pipeline, you've failed to tell us what pipelines Biden has shutdown. Do you know how many pipelines are currently in operation? Do you know how many new, expanded, or extended pipelines are currently under construction?

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/

This Week in Petroleum
Release Date: October 20, 2021

On October 1, 2021, the Enbridge Inc. Line 3 replacement pipeline became fully operational, delivering crude oil from Edmonton, Alberta, to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline’s start comes seven years after the announcement of the Line 3 replacement project, which was designed to restore the pipeline’s capacity to 760,000 barrels per day (b/d), from about half that amount, and improve its safety. Because the Line 3 replacement project increases the capacity for U.S. crude oil imports by pipeline from Canada, it could displace some crude oil currently shipped by rail. This change could increase Western Canada Select (WCS) crude oil prices and narrow the price spread between WCS and West Texas Intermediate (WTI), which has at times widened significantly as a result of a lack of pipeline capacity. In addition, the expanded capacity could facilitate the expected growth in Canada’s crude oil production through 2022.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/climate/line-3-pipeline-biden

Biden Administration Backs Oil Sands Pipeline Project

The Biden administration has defended a contentious pipeline project that would carry hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil through Minnesota’s delicate watersheds, urging in a court brief that a challenge brought by local tribes and environmental groups be thrown out.

It appears he's getting tired of begging the Arabs to pump more oil.  But let's look back at his order one week after he took office in Jan 2021 to see what his real policies are:

Biden Makes Sweeping Changes to Oil and Gas Policy
January 28, 2021

President Joe Biden has followed through on a campaign pledge by introducing a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on federal lands and waters. With nearly 25 percent of U.S. oil and gas production coming from federal lands, the policy shift may have significant implications for future investment and production.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/biden-makes-sweeping-changes-oil-and-gas-policy

[digitaldog]

Biden's bias against oil is reducing production.   

The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. Without absurdity, we would have no one to laugh at. Thank you for your contributions to humor in these forums.

[TechTalk]

You're playing games

That's partially true. I made two simple factual statements and deliberately held back on linking the source of those facts, both of which I had already verified before posting.

I made one set of assumptions based on lengthy observation of your habits when replying to posts. I anticipated that you would: a) fail at comprehending what was actually written; b) post a reply claiming that I wrote something that I didn't write; c) reply to that nonexistent quote which was made by you rather than me, d) say that my "opinion based on assumptions is wrong", by using a statement which I did not make and replying instead to your own misreading; e) you would assume that you had a gotcha and claim that I "ought to check the facts", which I already had verified.

You did not disappoint in fulfilling my expectations and had a perfect score on a) thru e). I also suspected that you would be unable to resist posting a rushed reply to my first factual statement—The U.S. has been a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products for the first half of 2021 as it was in 2020—because you have so often Trumpeted achieving net exporter status in 2020 as one of Trump's achievements and would have an immediate knee-jerk reaction.

Beyond exposing your posting habits, I wanted to use your anticipated response to point you toward reality. The reality which you ignore in posting on these topics is that neither Trump or Biden are responsible for the rising trend in oil production. Oil production follows long trend lines that extend over several years. The most recent long trend line is from a low point in 2008 of 5 million barrels per day to the current rate of around 11 million barrels per day. That rising trend line, over more than a decade, is the result of many factors over many years and not the result of any single factor or administration. That same rising trend line, over the past 13-years, in domestic oil production has been a critical factor in the U.S. being a net exporter in 2020 and 2021. That's a fact and a reality which did not come about in the last year or two.

https://www.eia.gov/Annual U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil

So yes, I did post those two statements partially as a game in anticipation of your knee-jerk response. I've grown weary of playing the game of responding to your bait of assertions and assumptions. I thought it was time to toss out some facts as bait you couldn't resist and wait for your reply. But, my game also had a purpose beyond your expected reaction which was to attempt to point you toward at least looking at a bigger picture and toward recognition of a broader reality in the future.

[Alan Klein]

That's partially true. I made two simple factual statements and deliberately held back on linking the source of those facts, both of which I had already verified before posting.

I made one set of assumptions based on lengthy observation of your habits when replying to posts. I anticipated that you would: a) fail at comprehending what was actually written; b) post a reply claiming that I wrote something that I didn't write; c) reply to that nonexistent quote which was made by you rather than me, d) say that my "opinion based on assumptions is wrong", by using a statement which I did not make and replying instead to your own misreading; e) you would assume that you had a gotcha and claim that I "ought to check the facts", which I already had verified.

You did not disappoint in fulfilling my expectations and had a perfect score on a) thru e). I also suspected that you would be unable to resist posting a rushed reply to my first factual statement—The U.S. has been a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products for the first half of 2021 as it was in 2020—because you have so often Trumpeted achieving net exporter status in 2020 as one of Trump's achievements and would have an immediate knee-jerk reaction.

Beyond exposing your posting habits, I wanted to use your anticipated response to point you toward reality. The reality which you ignore in posting on these topics is that neither Trump or Biden are responsible for the rising trend in oil production. Oil production follows long trend lines that extend over several years. The most recent long trend line is from a low point in 2008 of 5 million barrels per day to the current rate of around 11 million barrels per day. That rising trend line, over more than a decade, is the result of many factors over many years and not the result of any single factor or administration. That same rising trend line, over the past 13-years, in domestic oil production has been a critical factor in the U.S. being a net exporter in 2020 and 2021. That's a fact and a reality which did not come about in the last year or two.

https://www.eia.gov/Annual U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil

So yes, I did post those two statements partially as a game in anticipation of your knee-jerk response. I've grown weary of playing the game of responding to your bait of assertions and assumptions. I thought it was time to toss out some facts as bait you couldn't resist and wait for your reply. But, my game also had a purpose beyond your expected reaction which was to attempt to point you toward at least looking at a bigger picture and toward recognition of a broader reality in the future.

So I caught you at your game playing and now you say I made you do it.  Good grief!

[digitaldog]

So I caught you at your game playing and now you say I made you do it.

His game: 3D Chess.
Your game: Checkers.

[Robert Roaldi]

So I caught you at your game playing and now you say I made you do it.  Good grief!

Stop trolling, it's not what these forums are for.

[TechTalk]

So I caught you at your game playing and now you say I made you do it.  Good grief!

No... once again, you failed to comprehend what you presumably read. Once again, you make up something and pretend that I said it. Where did I say that you "made" me do anything? What I said was that that I "deliberately held back on linking the source". A deliberate action on my part is the opposite of being "made" to do something.

This is what makes you so easily predictable. It's compulsive, you just can't help yourself. Maybe there's a 12-step program that would help you.

I wrote that I anticipated "your posting habits" in your reply and your immediate response is to confirm that your posting habits are what I anticipated and exposed and brought to your attention. I sought to bring them to your attention because your continuous game of pretending to read and then respond to what others have actually written with your replies is one with which many others are already painfully aware.

I also wrote that it was "partially as a game" but one with a larger purpose. Well, here's to bouncing another couple of balls off the brick wall.

[Alan Klein]

Stop trolling, it's not what these forums are for.

How am I trolling when someone else is lying and playing games distorting the facts?

[Alan Klein]

No... once again, you failed to comprehend what you presumably read. Once again, you make up something and pretend that I said it. Where did I say that you "made" me do anything? What I said was that that I "deliberately held back on linking the source". A deliberate action on my part is the opposite of being "made" do something.

This is what makes you so easily predictable. It's compulsive, you just can't help yourself. Maybe there's a 12-step program that would help you.

I wrote that I wanted to expose "your posting habits" and your immediate response is to confirm that your posting habits are what I intended to (and did) expose and brought to your attention. I sought to bring them to your attention because your continuous game of pretending to read and then respond to what others have actually written with your replies is one with which many others are already painfully aware.

I also wrote that it was "partially as a game" but one with a larger purpose. Well, here's to bouncing another couple of balls off the brick wall.

What a lame excuse for your game playing:-  It had a larger purpose. 

"Yes, Judge, I know I distorted figures on my tax returns.  But I had a larger purpose of showing how unfair taxes are."   That'll get you three years.

[TechTalk]

How am I trolling when someone else is lying and playing games distorting the facts?

You're trolling right now.

[digitaldog]

How am I trolling when someone else is lying and playing games distorting the facts?

No need to ask silly questions: you have this odd habit of asking questions of others, when your posting history and agenda show/prove, you have no desire or ability to accept any answer.
Your lying playbook and accusations failed months ago. Called out and dismissed repeatedly, proving the point: you failed to comprehend what you presumably read.

[Alan Klein]

You're trolling right now.

Oh please!  What you described yourself doing is trolling.  You admitted trying to get a rise out of me using distortion.  That's trolling on your part. 

[TechTalk]

You admitted trying to get a rise out of me using distortion.

That's not what I wrote.

[Alan Klein]

That's not what I wrote.

You admitted you distorted to get me to react a certain way.  That's getting a "rise" out of someone.

[TechTalk]

You admitted you distorted to get me to react a certain way.

That's not what I wrote.

There are times when the lack of comprehension knows no bounds.

[Alan Klein]

So now we have this story of a shooting and a killing on a film lot.  Tragedy that the videographer, a woman and mother,  was shot and killed and a male worker injured, but apparently the latter is now OK.  Some questions:

How did one apparent bullet hit two people?
Was it a bullet with a slug or a blank bullet? Was the barrel checked beforehand for clearance?
If it had a slug, a real bullet, who put it in the gun?  There was a labor strike and workers walked off the job right before.  So this smells like someone did it deliberately if it turns out it was a real bullet.  So the case could turn from negligence to murder or manslaughter.
Why did the actor aim the gun at the videographer?  Wasn't he instructed never to do that?
The actor who shot the gun was also one of the producers.  So if he didn't have proper gun experts present, he can't claim he's innocent just because someone (I think an Assoc Director) said it was a "cold' prop gun.  In fact, were New Mexico laws regarding monitoring violated? (It happened in Sante Fe).  If experts walked off the job beforehand, the producers should have shut down the filming.  Were laws violated?

Frankly, I think you're going to see everyone lawyering up and shutting up.

[Alan Klein]

I did some more checking.  This part is interesting:  There were other incidents of live ammunition. Incredible.

Why Did Crew Members Walk Off Set Earlier That Day?
The LA Times reports that several crew members walked off set to protest working conditions hours ahead of the fatal accident. They accused the production of not properly following safety protocols, including gun inspections. The workers claimed that there were two accidental gun discharges on set before, with Baldwin’s stunt double allegedly firing a gun that was announced as “cold” only to find a live round in it.

“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member alleged to the LA Times. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/alec-baldwin-shooting-on-rust-set-everything-to-know-so-far/how-are-other-sets-reacting/

[digitaldog]

You're trolling right now.

Yes, he is and has (mostly) done so since day one in this thread, which began on November 4th, 2020. Nearly a year and 239 pages, nothing has changed. I have accepted this fact.

Trolls live for attention, that’s all they have. And therefore, thanks to your post quoted above, (which isn't a new revelation), and Bill’s editorial below**, I’ve had a epiphany: I’m done with this Bear Pit. Which may make a few happy and that’s fine too.

This troll is the 2nd most unintelligent moronic individual I’ve encountered in any photo forum. The first on my list posted earlier today doesn't belong anywhere near a photo forum.
Nothing will change their minds or their trolling habits. Nothing! Expect perhaps ignoring them. Not providing the oxogen they so need to continue to troll. So I’m really, really going to fight the urge to read, let alone reply to the trolls (big and little hammer). Notifications off, less noise, out of sight, out of mind.

I’ve been a LuLa member since 2004 and this site and forum are not what they once were. I’m convinced the site owners keep “The Coffee Corner > Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa“ running because they need to justify to their few advertisers that the traffic is such, they deserve advertising dollars. I will not support this site by posting/hits this way.  Life is too short to both provide energy to trolls and hoodwink advertisers by posting about politics with trolls on LuLa.

I strongly recommend to my fellow regular posters that they consider the same action, to produce a result where the life force trolls require is so low, they textually masterbate elsewhere. Some of ‘regulars’ here (and you know who you are), are very smart guys and by now know that no text, data, or factual evidence will change the replies of this troll. He cannot learn, cannot accept facts and cannot nor will ever escape his huge confirmation bias.

For me and perhaps others, it is time for a divorce as outlined so well below, and as such, I will STFU here. Fortunately (for me) there are still a few LuLa forums where the art and technology of photography provide an interest. I am not going anywhere. The hammer will of course assume, without a lick of data, I've been banned simply because I can no longer stand to read and reply to his utter BS day in and day out.

So goodby Bear Pit. Many of you earned my respect based on your writings. Far less, two or three, have earned my top awards for their brainless, foolish writings. Adiós.

** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL_SGxCEiwI
“If we want to halt this descent into civil war, we have to stop hating each other“.

[LesPalenik]

So now we have this story of a shooting and a killing on a film lot.  Tragedy that the videographer, a woman and mother,  was shot and killed and a male worker injured, but apparently the latter is now OK.  Some questions:

How did one apparent bullet hit two people?
Was it a bullet with a slug or a blank bullet? Was the barrel checked beforehand for clearance?
If it had a slug, a real bullet, who put it in the gun?  There was a labor strike and workers walked off the job right before.  So this smells like someone did it deliberately if it turns out it was a real bullet.  So the case could turn from negligence to murder or manslaughter.
Why did the actor aim the gun at the videographer?  Wasn't he instructed never to do that?
The actor who shot the gun was also one of the producers.  So if he didn't have proper gun experts present, he can't claim he's innocent just because someone (I think an Assoc Director) said it was a "cold' prop gun.  In fact, were New Mexico laws regarding monitoring violated? (It happened in Sante Fe).  If experts walked off the job beforehand, the producers should have shut down the filming.  Were laws violated?

Many valid questions. The most important one is why did Baldwin aim at the videographer? And why were the live rounds on the site? Who loaded the gun?