Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
< https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1536041441855774723?s=21&t=JlRPcjMmvP9arTYguqfOTQ>
-hh
On 2022-06-12 17:33, -hh wrote:
Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
< https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1536041441855774723?s=21&t=JlRPcjMmvP9arTYguqfOTQ>
-hhH, H, H....!
Our wingnuts don't let little things like facts get in their way.
Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
< https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1536041441855774723?s=21&t=JlRPcjMmvP9arTYguqfOTQ>
-hh
Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
< https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1536041441855774723?s=21&t=JlRPcjMmvP9arTYguqfOTQ>
-hh
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
< https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1536041441855774723?s=21&t=JlRPcjMmvP9arTYguqfOTQ>
-hhAnother issue with the averages used is that they cover different time spans. 48 months of Trump and 16 months of Biden.
Let's compare the entire Biden record with the last 16 months of Trump's.
Biden 16 month average 340,922,000 barrels/month
Trump last 16 month average 354,311,000 barrels/month
The Trump average includes the pandemic-induced 2020 drop when travel almost stopped for a month.
Mar-2020 397,298,000
Apr-2020 357,344,000
May-2020 301,045,000
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:41:16 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:it. They are beyond entertaining.
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
< https://twitter.com/tristansnell/status/1536041441855774723?s=21&t=JlRPcjMmvP9arTYguqfOTQ>
-hhAnother issue with the averages used is that they cover different time spans. 48 months of Trump and 16 months of Biden.
Let's compare the entire Biden record with the last 16 months of Trump's.
Biden 16 month average 340,922,000 barrels/month
Trump last 16 month average 354,311,000 barrels/month
The Trump average includes the pandemic-induced 2020 drop when travel almost stopped for a month.
Mar-2020 397,298,000You have presented your argument well. You have credibility, being someone with THREE degrees, compared to another than could not even complete ONE.
Apr-2020 357,344,000
May-2020 301,045,000
Anyone can google and sound intelligent, you genuinely come across as intelligent. The only head scratcher with you is why you waste your time with a group of clowns that no matter what you say will be contrary. If it is for entertainment value, I get
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Irving S wrote:
...Alan ald HH think they are so honest and knowledable. This post illustrates that perfrectly.
Anyone with the slightest stats background would realize that you can't meaningfully compare a 4 year average with 16 months.
More true especially with the pandemic effects causing all kinds of outliers you need to look at
what happened over time, not just total/# months.
Alan thinks ..
HH thinks that floating around over a reef looking at sea life while breathing through a snorkel is the same as diving.
He also once asked me toi take my logbook to an FAA official he claimed to know to get some
entries verified.
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Irving S wrote:Illustrating how Thomas goes to Ad Hominem even before I've offered a counter to his criticism.
...Alan ald HH think they are so honest and knowledable. This post illustrates that perfrectly.
Anyone with the slightest stats background would realize that you can't meaningfully compare a 4 year average with 16 months.Depends on the context, since averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth
out the month-to-month variations.
More true especially with the pandemic effects causing all kinds of outliers you need to look atOr even more so, since the generally expected pattern of a positive slope was altered. Keep that
what happened over time, not just total/# months.
in mind when contextually considering which segments to consider.
Alan thinks ..
Which has to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis ... how? Because when it doesn't,
then you're stooping to perpetuate a personal Ad Hominem attack and admitting that you lost.
HH thinks that floating around over a reef looking at sea life while breathing through a snorkel is the same as diving.Really? Got cite?
And just how does this have to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis?
Because your "30 minute dive to 100ft on 15 minutes of air" insult attempt failed years ago:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/brac/Suunto-2015-05-15-0832HRS.jpg>
He also once asked me toi take my logbook to an FAA official he claimed to know to get someYour memory is failing you again, Tom: the facts are that your spreadsheet of your logbook was
entries verified.
the source from which Alan did some math and found some irregularities...and which you then
blustered loudly about. You did all that before I made any comment whatsoever. When I first
made a comment about said logs, it was an offer to ask a personal friend (who's worn an FAA hat)
for a favor in looking at your logs in an off-the-record capacity - - to which you've conducted even
more blustering about. IIRC, I was hoping to get you to pay for our airline tickets to meet up with
this old friend; which is why I didn't initially disclose is that they live in UK.
In any event, the conclusion on CSMA was that there was that your old (early) logbook was invariably
an optimistic estimate of the practices being conducted and that that was generally consistent with
what was traditionally done during that era. For example, time entries were invariably rounded off too;
if it was anything like logbook based job timekeeping of that period, probably to no better resolution
than to the nearest quarter hour (and an easy way to inflate claimed minimum hours).
Meantime, when it came to your demands on logbooks, I provided this pic for scuba diving:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/HH-logbooks_01-14.jpg>
Since that's an older pic, there's now a few more logs that would be added onto that pile,
including the current one which had dives earlier this month. Sorry: I did spend some time
away on holiday and forgot to try to brag about it while it was happening. Total trip cost was
a shade above $10K, partly because we opted for first class airfare on the international flight.
-hh
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 5:58:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Irving S wrote:
...Alan ald HH think they are so honest and knowledable. This post illustrates that perfrectly.
Illustrating how Thomas goes to Ad Hominem even before I've offered a counter to his criticism.
Anyone with the slightest stats background would realize that you can't meaningfully compare
a 4 year average with 16 months.
Depends on the context, since averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth
out the month-to-month variations.
More true especially with the pandemic effects causing all kinds of outliers you need to look at
what happened over time, not just total/# months.
Or even more so, since the generally expected pattern of a positive slope was altered. Keep that
in mind when contextually considering which segments to consider.
Alan thinks ..
Which has to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis ... how? Because when it doesn't,
then you're stooping to perpetuate a personal Ad Hominem attack and admitting that you lost.
HH thinks that floating around over a reef looking at sea life while breathing through a snorkel is the same as diving.
Really? Got cite?
And just how does this have to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis?
Because your "30 minute dive to 100ft on 15 minutes of air" insult attempt failed years ago:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/brac/Suunto-2015-05-15-0832HRS.jpg>
He also once asked me toi take my logbook to an FAA official he claimed to know to get some
entries verified.
Your memory is failing you again, Tom: the facts are that your spreadsheet of your logbook was
the source from which Alan did some math and found some irregularities...and which you then
blustered loudly about. You did all that before I made any comment whatsoever. When I first
made a comment about said logs, it was an offer to ask a personal friend (who's worn an FAA hat)
for a favor in looking at your logs in an off-the-record capacity - - to which you've conducted even
more blustering about. IIRC, I was hoping to get you to pay for our airline tickets to meet up with
this old friend; which is why I didn't initially disclose is that they live in UK.
In any event, the conclusion on CSMA was that there was that your old (early) logbook was invariably
an optimistic estimate of the practices being conducted and that that was generally consistent with
what was traditionally done during that era. For example, time entries were invariably rounded off too;
if it was anything like logbook based job timekeeping of that period, probably to no better resolution
than to the nearest quarter hour (and an easy way to inflate claimed minimum hours).
Meantime, when it came to your demands on logbooks, I provided this pic for scuba diving:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/HH-logbooks_01-14.jpg>
Since that's an older pic, there's now a few more logs that would be added onto that pile,
including the current one which had dives earlier this month. Sorry: I did spend some time
away on holiday and forgot to try to brag about it while it was happening. Total trip cost was
a shade above $10K, partly because we opted for first class airfare on the international flight.
Sorry Hugh, but comparing averages over different time spans begs for further examination of the data.
In this case it is true that if you look at the last 16 months of the Trump administration crude production
was higher that the first 16 months of Biden's. The data before that 16 month span of the Trump
administration is not relevant.
Lower U.S. oil production is one factor causing higher energy costs.
As for my logbooks ...
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 12:19:14 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 5:58:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Irving S wrote:
...Alan ald HH think they are so honest and knowledable. This post illustrates that perfrectly.
Illustrating how Thomas goes to Ad Hominem even before I've offered a counter to his criticism.
Anyone with the slightest stats background would realize that you can't meaningfully compare
a 4 year average with 16 months.
Depends on the context, since averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth
out the month-to-month variations.
More true especially with the pandemic effects causing all kinds of outliers you need to look at
what happened over time, not just total/# months.
Or even more so, since the generally expected pattern of a positive slope was altered. Keep that
in mind when contextually considering which segments to consider.
Alan thinks ..
Which has to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis ... how? Because when it doesn't,
then you're stooping to perpetuate a personal Ad Hominem attack and admitting that you lost.
HH thinks that floating around over a reef looking at sea life while breathing through a snorkel is the same as diving.
Guess not.Really? Got cite?
And just how does this have to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis?
Because your "30 minute dive to 100ft on 15 minutes of air" insult attempt failed years ago:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/brac/Suunto-2015-05-15-0832HRS.jpg>
He also once asked me toi take my logbook to an FAA official he claimed to know to get some
entries verified.
Your memory is failing you again, Tom: the facts are that your spreadsheet of your logbook was
the source from which Alan did some math and found some irregularities...and which you then
blustered loudly about. You did all that before I made any comment whatsoever. When I first
made a comment about said logs, it was an offer to ask a personal friend (who's worn an FAA hat)
for a favor in looking at your logs in an off-the-record capacity - - to which you've conducted even
more blustering about. IIRC, I was hoping to get you to pay for our airline tickets to meet up with
this old friend; which is why I didn't initially disclose is that they live in UK.
In any event, the conclusion on CSMA was that there was that your old (early) logbook was invariably
an optimistic estimate of the practices being conducted and that that was generally consistent with
what was traditionally done during that era. For example, time entries were invariably rounded off too;
if it was anything like logbook based job timekeeping of that period, probably to no better resolution
than to the nearest quarter hour (and an easy way to inflate claimed minimum hours).
Meantime, when it came to your demands on logbooks, I provided this pic for scuba diving:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/HH-logbooks_01-14.jpg>
Since that's an older pic, there's now a few more logs that would be added onto that pile,
including the current one which had dives earlier this month. Sorry: I did spend some time
away on holiday and forgot to try to brag about it while it was happening. Total trip cost was
a shade above $10K, partly because we opted for first class airfare on the international flight.
Sorry Hugh, but comparing averages over different time spans begs for further examination of the data.Incorrect, for as noted above (which you didn't comment on) is that it "[d]epends on the context, since
averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth out the month-to-month variations."
Averages are an effective tool for comparing central tendency characteristics of populations, even those
of different sizes: there is no rule that says that populations can only be compared if they're exactly equal;
indeed, using statistics serves to be able to to normalize measures of different sized populations.
In this case it is true that if you look at the last 16 months of the Trump administration crude productionAnd just why wouldn't it be? After all, since CoVid was a major change in the market, what's the
was higher that the first 16 months of Biden's. The data before that 16 month span of the Trump
administration is not relevant.
rationale for including any months prior to crude oil cutbacks being included?
Taking just the production cutback from CoVid would be May 20 - Dec 20 = 325,831 kBBls/day.
FYI, this is May 2020, not March, because one needs to account for the fact that the crude production
industry has inertia and lag, for not just shutdown but also restoration: that's why its also informative
to go check on if the oil companies have put up the money for turning wells back on, to gage how much
(if at all) they're trying to invest in oil fields to turn them back on and alleviate the gap. Ditto through
the rest of the supply chain; be wary of self-interests which have profit gains on both sides.
Lower U.S. oil production is one factor causing higher energy costs.Because lower Russia supply isn't an insignificant factor either, as it is a world commodity market.
Plus one can gage that crude production changes are a lagging indicator on demand drop, and since
a benefit of using an average is to reduce how much noise is in the data. For example, if one moves
from monthly totals to an annualized basis, then the years are:
2017: 284,605 (max/min: 309,359 255,059)
2018: 332,774 (max/min: 369,644 287,727)
2019: 373,804 (max/min: 400,219 326,272)
2020: 344,130 (max/min: 397,298 301,045)
CoVid 325,831 (max/min: 343,591 301,045)
2021: 340,291 (max/min: 359,709 273,646*)
2022: 343,446 (max/min: 361,312 316,578)
* - interesting outlier for Feb 21; without it, min=325,538
Overall, very easy to compare that vs prior years/decades, plus that CoVid was a major
correction in crude production due to demand fall, and also that the latest period is the
highest to date since the large & rapid supply chain contraction in May 2020.
As for my logbooks ...
Merely ancient history which you nevertheless believe is important enough to your
ego to go whine about yet again. As I said, my main motivation at the time to poke
you on it was simply to maybe get you to pony up for airfare for us to go visit W,
which of course you dodged, even before you learning that it would've been to UK.
-hh
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 6:56:55 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 12:19:14 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 5:58:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Irving S wrote:
...Alan ald HH think they are so honest and knowledable. This post illustrates that perfrectly.
Illustrating how Thomas goes to Ad Hominem even before I've offered a counter to his criticism.
Anyone with the slightest stats background would realize that you can't meaningfully compare
a 4 year average with 16 months.
Depends on the context, since averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth
out the month-to-month variations.
More true especially with the pandemic effects causing all kinds of outliers you need to look at
what happened over time, not just total/# months.
Or even more so, since the generally expected pattern of a positive slope was altered. Keep that
in mind when contextually considering which segments to consider.
Alan thinks ..
Which has to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis ... how? Because when it doesn't,
then you're stooping to perpetuate a personal Ad Hominem attack and admitting that you lost.
HH thinks that floating around over a reef looking at sea life while breathing through a snorkel is the same as diving.
Guess not.Really? Got cite?
And just how does this have to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis?
Because your "30 minute dive to 100ft on 15 minutes of air" insult attempt failed years ago:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/brac/Suunto-2015-05-15-0832HRS.jpg>
He also once asked me toi take my logbook to an FAA official he claimed to know to get some
entries verified.
Your memory is failing you again, Tom: the facts are that your spreadsheet of your logbook was
the source from which Alan did some math and found some irregularities...and which you then
blustered loudly about. You did all that before I made any comment whatsoever. When I first
made a comment about said logs, it was an offer to ask a personal friend (who's worn an FAA hat)
for a favor in looking at your logs in an off-the-record capacity - - to which you've conducted even
more blustering about. IIRC, I was hoping to get you to pay for our airline tickets to meet up with
this old friend; which is why I didn't initially disclose is that they live in UK.
In any event, the conclusion on CSMA was that there was that your old (early) logbook was invariably
an optimistic estimate of the practices being conducted and that that was generally consistent with
what was traditionally done during that era. For example, time entries were invariably rounded off too;
if it was anything like logbook based job timekeeping of that period, probably to no better resolution
than to the nearest quarter hour (and an easy way to inflate claimed minimum hours).
Meantime, when it came to your demands on logbooks, I provided this pic for scuba diving:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/HH-logbooks_01-14.jpg>
Since that's an older pic, there's now a few more logs that would be added onto that pile,
including the current one which had dives earlier this month. Sorry: I did spend some time
away on holiday and forgot to try to brag about it while it was happening. Total trip cost was
a shade above $10K, partly because we opted for first class airfare on the international flight.
Sorry Hugh, but comparing averages over different time spans begs for further examination of the data.Incorrect, for as noted above (which you didn't comment on) is that it "[d]epends on the context, since
averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth out the month-to-month variations."
Averages are an effective tool for comparing central tendency characteristics of populations, even those
of different sizes: there is no rule that says that populations can only be compared if they're exactly equal;
indeed, using statistics serves to be able to to normalize measures of different sized populations.
In this case it is true that if you look at the last 16 months of the Trump administration crude productionAnd just why wouldn't it be? After all, since CoVid was a major change in the market, what's the
was higher that the first 16 months of Biden's. The data before that 16 month span of the Trump
administration is not relevant.
rationale for including any months prior to crude oil cutbacks being included?
Taking just the production cutback from CoVid would be May 20 - Dec 20 = 325,831 kBBls/day.
FYI, this is May 2020, not March, because one needs to account for the fact that the crude production
industry has inertia and lag, for not just shutdown but also restoration: that's why its also informative
to go check on if the oil companies have put up the money for turning wells back on, to gage how much
(if at all) they're trying to invest in oil fields to turn them back on and alleviate the gap. Ditto through
the rest of the supply chain; be wary of self-interests which have profit gains on both sides.
Lower U.S. oil production is one factor causing higher energy costs.
Because lower Russia supply isn't an insignificant factor either, as it is a world commodity market.
Plus one can gage that crude production changes are a lagging indicator on demand drop, and since
a benefit of using an average is to reduce how much noise is in the data. For example, if one moves
from monthly totals to an annualized basis, then the years are:
2017: 284,605 (max/min: 309,359 255,059)
2018: 332,774 (max/min: 369,644 287,727)
2019: 373,804 (max/min: 400,219 326,272)
2020: 344,130 (max/min: 397,298 301,045)
CoVid 325,831 (max/min: 343,591 301,045)
2021: 340,291 (max/min: 359,709 273,646*)
2022: 343,446 (max/min: 361,312 316,578)
* - interesting outlier for Feb 21; without it, min=325,538
Overall, very easy to compare that vs prior years/decades, plus that CoVid was a major
correction in crude production due to demand fall, and also that the latest period is the
highest to date since the large & rapid supply chain contraction in May 2020.
As for my logbooks ...
Merely ancient history which you nevertheless believe is important enough to your
ego to go whine about yet again. As I said, my main motivation at the time to poke
you on it was simply to maybe get you to pony up for airfare for us to go visit W,
which of course you dodged, even before you learning that it would've been to UK.
Hugh, I did not say that averages have to compare exactly same anything.
All I said was that they are not the complete picture in many cases. So you proceeded to do exactly that!
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:34:43 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 6:56:55 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 12:19:14 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 5:58:17 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 11:46:23 PM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 2:47:18 PM UTC-4, Irving S wrote:
...Alan ald HH think they are so honest and knowledable. This post illustrates that perfrectly.
Illustrating how Thomas goes to Ad Hominem even before I've offered a counter to his criticism.
Anyone with the slightest stats background would realize that you can't meaningfully compare
a 4 year average with 16 months.
Depends on the context, since averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth
out the month-to-month variations.
More true especially with the pandemic effects causing all kinds of outliers you need to look at
what happened over time, not just total/# months.
Or even more so, since the generally expected pattern of a positive slope was altered. Keep that
in mind when contextually considering which segments to consider.
Alan thinks ..
Which has to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis ... how? Because when it doesn't,
then you're stooping to perpetuate a personal Ad Hominem attack and admitting that you lost.
HH thinks that floating around over a reef looking at sea life while breathing through a snorkel is the same as diving.
Guess not.Really? Got cite?
And just how does this have to do with the topic of averages in trend analysis?
Because your "30 minute dive to 100ft on 15 minutes of air" insult attempt failed years ago:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/brac/Suunto-2015-05-15-0832HRS.jpg>
He also once asked me toi take my logbook to an FAA official he claimed to know to get some
entries verified.
Your memory is failing you again, Tom: the facts are that your spreadsheet of your logbook was
the source from which Alan did some math and found some irregularities...and which you then
blustered loudly about. You did all that before I made any comment whatsoever. When I first
made a comment about said logs, it was an offer to ask a personal friend (who's worn an FAA hat)
for a favor in looking at your logs in an off-the-record capacity - - to which you've conducted even
more blustering about. IIRC, I was hoping to get you to pay for our airline tickets to meet up with
this old friend; which is why I didn't initially disclose is that they live in UK.
In any event, the conclusion on CSMA was that there was that your old (early) logbook was invariably
an optimistic estimate of the practices being conducted and that that was generally consistent with
what was traditionally done during that era. For example, time entries were invariably rounded off too;
if it was anything like logbook based job timekeeping of that period, probably to no better resolution
than to the nearest quarter hour (and an easy way to inflate claimed minimum hours).
Meantime, when it came to your demands on logbooks, I provided this pic for scuba diving:
<http://huntzinger.com/photo/2015/HH-logbooks_01-14.jpg>
Since that's an older pic, there's now a few more logs that would be added onto that pile,
including the current one which had dives earlier this month. Sorry: I did spend some time
away on holiday and forgot to try to brag about it while it was happening. Total trip cost was
a shade above $10K, partly because we opted for first class airfare on the international flight.
Sorry Hugh, but comparing averages over different time spans begs for further examination of the data.Incorrect, for as noted above (which you didn't comment on) is that it "[d]epends on the context, since
averages are merely a measure of central tendency, such as to smooth out the month-to-month variations."
Averages are an effective tool for comparing central tendency characteristics of populations, even those
of different sizes: there is no rule that says that populations can only be compared if they're exactly equal;
indeed, using statistics serves to be able to to normalize measures of different sized populations.
In this case it is true that if you look at the last 16 months of the Trump administration crude productionAnd just why wouldn't it be? After all, since CoVid was a major change in the market, what's the
was higher that the first 16 months of Biden's. The data before that 16 month span of the Trump
administration is not relevant.
rationale for including any months prior to crude oil cutbacks being included?
Taking just the production cutback from CoVid would be May 20 - Dec 20 = 325,831 kBBls/day.
FYI, this is May 2020, not March, because one needs to account for the fact that the crude production
industry has inertia and lag, for not just shutdown but also restoration: that's why its also informative
to go check on if the oil companies have put up the money for turning wells back on, to gage how much
(if at all) they're trying to invest in oil fields to turn them back on and alleviate the gap. Ditto through
the rest of the supply chain; be wary of self-interests which have profit gains on both sides.
Lower U.S. oil production is one factor causing higher energy costs.
Because lower Russia supply isn't an insignificant factor either, as it is a world commodity market.
Plus one can gage that crude production changes are a lagging indicator on demand drop, and since
a benefit of using an average is to reduce how much noise is in the data. For example, if one moves
from monthly totals to an annualized basis, then the years are:
2017: 284,605 (max/min: 309,359 255,059)
2018: 332,774 (max/min: 369,644 287,727)
2019: 373,804 (max/min: 400,219 326,272)
2020: 344,130 (max/min: 397,298 301,045)
CoVid 325,831 (max/min: 343,591 301,045)
2021: 340,291 (max/min: 359,709 273,646*)
2022: 343,446 (max/min: 361,312 316,578)
* - interesting outlier for Feb 21; without it, min=325,538
Overall, very easy to compare that vs prior years/decades, plus that CoVid was a major
correction in crude production due to demand fall, and also that the latest period is the
highest to date since the large & rapid supply chain contraction in May 2020.
As for my logbooks ...
Merely ancient history which you nevertheless believe is important enough to your
ego to go whine about yet again. As I said, my main motivation at the time to poke
you on it was simply to maybe get you to pony up for airfare for us to go visit W,
which of course you dodged, even before you learning that it would've been to UK.
Hugh, I did not say that averages have to compare exactly same anything.You certainly tried to imply that!
All I said was that they are not the complete picture in many cases. So you proceeded to do exactly that!Because you didn't: you used a period which didn't provide a complete picture.
Likewise, if you really wished to stay on the actual topic, you would have identified
the reductions in refinery capacity which has driven up the 'crack spread', which
essentially is identifying the profit level of refineries which contributes to retail prices.
Case in point:
<https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48636> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/06/20/refineries-profit-gas-prices/>
<https://www.marketplace.org/2022/05/23/u-s-oil-refiners-margins-smash-records-but-few-plan-to-build-more-plants/>
<https://rbnenergy.com/cracking-up-whats-driving-us-refiners-sky-high-crack-spreads>
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-01/oil-holds-steady-as-traders-weigh-china-covid-measures-eu-moves>
<https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/marketreview/petproducts.php>
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:======================================================================
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
You've lied about me repeatedly.
On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:33:38 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
Domestic oil production higher under Biden than Trump:
<
-hh
Gross misuse of statistics. The averages mask important data. Here is
a more complete story:
1. Under Trump crude production increased rapidly after falling under
the last Obama years. 2. Under Trump crude production reached
all-time highs in 2020 until the pandemic caused a significant drop
in crude demand and production. 3. Crude production has never fully recovered to it's pre-pandemic peak. 4. Crude production under Biden
is falling far short of potential shown in early 2020. 5. Energy
demand increased as the economy rebounded. 6. Crude supply has
fallen far short of increasing demand. 7. Annual crude production
averages are misleading and distort the facts. 8. Twitter, as shown
by Trump, is not a reliable source.
Here is the proof:
Data Source: Energy Information Administration:
Graphed EIA crude production data:
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait.
Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
There is no way that anyone can look at those 50+ year old records
and say they were "fudged" or not.
My CFI signed me off as having at least the minimum requirements for
my checkride and the logbook entries, including signatures from
destination airport employees for the x-country flights, are in my
logbooks. Rental records no longer exist. My CFI died 2 years ago,
and the Spears Aviation people who rented the aircraft are long gone
too.
How do you propose that anyone can verify the record?
Tom Elam wrote:
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait.
Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
There is no way that anyone can look at those 50+ year old records
and say they were "fudged" or not.
My CFI signed me off as having at least the minimum requirements for
my checkride and the logbook entries, including signatures from
destination airport employees for the x-country flights, are in my logbooks. Rental records no longer exist. My CFI died 2 years ago,
and the Spears Aviation people who rented the aircraft are long gone
too.
How do you propose that anyone can verify the record?So you are saying your claims are unsupportable, okay.
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
You've lied about me repeatedly.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.
On 2022-06-28 17:15, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.Oh, I fully realize that.
But I remember the lies he's told about me more easily.
Like when he called my LinkedIn page my "company website".
:-)
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 8:27:45 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 17:15, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.Oh, I fully realize that.
But I remember the lies he's told about me more easily.
Like when he called my LinkedIn page my "company website".
:-)
It was all you had that I could find at the time.
In any event with you now in the employ of a small company that
is not the case any more. Seems your consulting company was
not able to support you any longer!
Hugh absolutely lied about his friend in England. He even now admits it, Liarboy.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 8:27:45 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 17:15, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, I fully realize that.
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and calledActually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also
me a liar. Of course I was upset.
noted that the numbers probably were 'fudged', simply due
to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens
a lot even to this day in keeping track of touch labor
hours in small businesses, such as how a time of eight
minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or
less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and AlanOn the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't
boosting your ego by nitpicking.
accurate, but that it just doesn't really matter anywhere
near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my
own scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such
that times were handwritten and invariably inaccurate
compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even seriousOn the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or
about the accusations. Asshole.
not) your convictions were. That it happened to come out as
you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was
gravy. I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't
retired, so if they had spotted anything dodgy in your
records, they would have been ethically compelled to report
you to FAA & CAP; you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really
wish to be convince me to a degree of precision
substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely
pony up for us all to go on a jaunt to see go someone that
I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your
logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better
than to make foolish claims that rely on the accuracy or
reliability of old records, such as using them to try to
claim something like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total
lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as
bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.
But I remember the lies he's told about me more easily.
Like when he called my LinkedIn page my "company website".
:-)
It was all you had that I could find at the time. In any event with
you now in the employ of a small company that is not the case any
more. Seems your consulting company was not able to support you any
longer!
Hugh absolutely lied about his friend in England. He even now admits
it, Liarboy.
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 8:27:45 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 17:15, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, I fully realize that.
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today.
Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.
But I remember the lies he's told about me more easily.
Like when he called my LinkedIn page my "company website".
:-)
It was all you had that I could find at the time.
That doesn't excuse your misidentification.
In any event with you now in the employ of a small company that
is not the case any more. Seems your consulting company was
not able to support you any longer!
Speculation; you've not shown that the business no longer exists as
a corporation.
Hugh absolutely lied about his friend in England. He even now admits it, Liarboy.
Absolutely the opposite, as demonstrated by the illustration I provided: that
is of said individual and their spouse, standing in the front entranceway of their
home in the UK, which I remembered to take on a visit to their home.
On 2022-06-30 08:59, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 8:27:45 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 17:15, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, I fully realize that.
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today. >>>>>>>> Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.
On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.
But I remember the lies he's told about me more easily.
Like when he called my LinkedIn page my "company website".
:-)
It was all you had that I could find at the time.
That doesn't excuse your misidentification.KNOWING, deliberate misidentification as the Liarboy had his own
personal and company LinkedIn pages at the time.
In any event with you now in the employ of a small company that
is not the case any more. Seems your consulting company was
not able to support you any longer!
Speculation; you've not shown that the business no longer exists as
a corporation.
Hugh absolutely lied about his friend in England. He even now admits it, Liarboy.
Absolutely the opposite, as demonstrated by the illustration I provided: thatIsn't it interesting how the truth is almost always the opposite of what
is of said individual and their spouse, standing in the front entranceway of their
home in the UK, which I remembered to take on a visit to their home.
Tom says?
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 12:32:17 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-30 08:59, -hh wrote:
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 10:29:14 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 8:27:45 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:
On 2022-06-28 17:15, -hh wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 12:43:21 PM UTC-4, Alan wrote:Oh, I fully realize that.
On 2022-06-28 05:08, Tom Elam wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 10:33:15 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
As for the logbooks you and Alan insulted me and called me a liar. Of course I was upset.Actually, I offered a reasonable expectation, but also noted that the numbers probably were
'fudged', simply due to rounding in then-handwritten records. Same also happens a lot even
to this day in keeping track of touch labor hours in small businesses, such as how a time of
eight minutes gets rounded up to the next quarter hour, and 7 or less rounds down, etc.
It had nothing to do with my ego. It was you and Alan boosting your ego by nitpicking.On the contrary: I'm still of the opinion that they weren't accurate, but that it just doesn't
really matter anywhere near as much as you try to claim. It is much like how my own
scuba diving records go back to pre-digital era such that times were handwritten and
invariably inaccurate compared to what can be recorded today. >>>>>>>> Now you admit that by admitting you were not even serious about the accusations. Asshole.
On the contrary: it was to push you to test how strong (or not) your convictions were. That it
happened to come out as you paying for a jaunt for me to go visit an old friend was gravy.
I could have tapped someone local, but they weren't retired, so if they had spotted anything
dodgy in your records, they would have been ethically compelled to report you to FAA & CAP;
you're welcome.
But as I said then, and I'll reiterate now, if you really wish to be convince me to a degree of
precision substantially higher than what I'd pointed out, then merely pony up for us all to go
on a jaunt to see go someone that I trust to be a reliable OTR third party arbiter of your logs.
Because the difference between us is that I know better than to make foolish claims that
rely on the accuracy or reliability of old records, such as using them to try to claim something
like having exactly DD:HH:MM:SS of total lifetime scuba bottom time or whatever.
-hh
Bottom line is that you lied about a "friend in England" as bait. Having lied about that you cannot be trusted.
Interesting you define it in those terms, Liarboy.
Certainly is:
<tinyurl.com/Elam-loses-again>
You've lied about me repeatedly.
Not just about you.
But I remember the lies he's told about me more easily.
Like when he called my LinkedIn page my "company website".
:-)
It was all you had that I could find at the time.
That doesn't excuse your misidentification.KNOWING, deliberate misidentification as the Liarboy had his own
personal and company LinkedIn pages at the time.
In any event with you now in the employ of a small company that
is not the case any more. Seems your consulting company was
not able to support you any longer!
Speculation; you've not shown that the business no longer exists as
a corporation.
Hugh absolutely lied about his friend in England. He even now admits it, Liarboy.
Absolutely the opposite, as demonstrated by the illustration I provided: thatIsn't it interesting how the truth is almost always the opposite of what Tom says?
is of said individual and their spouse, standing in the front entranceway of their
home in the UK, which I remembered to take on a visit to their home.
No, the lie was that he made the offer just to see how I would react.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 65:49:47 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,229 |
