Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterfly  Quote: |
Originally Posted by bkkandrew Being called rubbish by a dimwit that has lost the argument is a like a double negative, so yes, I'm happy about that. | You have proved beyond reasonable double to be the dimwit, making stupid assumptions like price elasticity, basically saying "up" is "down", "green" is "blue", "sky" is "earth" etc..., and claiming some kind of argument victory out of the blue without refuting any of the points I made, which are not my opinions, but generally accepted academic and economics principles. Your arguments have all been your own little theory based on emotions and hearsay.
You are hopeless, and it's pointless at the end, you can't even understand basic concepts, hence my reference to 2+2
Your mianoi is probably waiting, |
A quick resume of the thread then:
Butterfly claimed that demand for oil from from China and India was 'imaginary'. I then posted data, with citations, showing him that it was real. He has not addressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.
Butterfly claimed that production was rising in tandem with demand. I then posted data, with citations, showing that during the period of price rises (2004-date), it had actually fallen. He has not adressed this, save from saying that the citations were 'loonies'.
Butterfly admitted that he was 100% out on his basic maths calculations on supply. He then said he wasn't, then he said that it didn't matter anyway.
When shown to be wrong by many on the thread, Butterfly has simply ranted, insulted, thrown reds around and changed the subject at every turn.