American BP Haters [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

trish

06-18-2010, 05:38 PM

As of today more than 146 million gallons of oil have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico from British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon site. The oil industry admits this is a bad spill, but not the worst. The Gulf War oil spill in Iraq spilled 462 million gallons of oil. There’s still hope, however, that the Deepwater Horizon spill can beat the world record; it’s gushing oil at a rate of 60 thousand barrels per day (which is 1.89 million gallons every day) and it probably won’t be sealed for another two or three months.

Even as the oil continues to pour into the gulf and onto its shores, cleanup efforts are underway. The optimists among us tell us that the shrimp beds, estuaries and beaches will begin to recover in a couple of years. Keep in mind that 16% of the oil lost in the Exxon Valdez accident (over twenty one years ago) still pollutes the ecology of Prince William Sound.

Can we be assured that more attention to safety and stricter regulation will eliminate accidents of this magnitude? Of course not. The probability of a serious spill will always be significant regardless of the precautions taken. It will only be a matter of time until the next spill. In short, if we continue offshore drilling, there will always be, on average, a significant rate of oil spillage. The only thing regulatory and safety precautions can do is attempt to keep the average rate of ecological damage below the rate at which the ecology can recover. If successful, we can look forward to waters, beaches, estuaries, shrimp beds and fisheries that are perpetually polluted and perpetually recovering; not pristine, not healthy but at least not dying. This is our best possible future if we continue offshore drilling.

A worse scenario is the fishing, shrimping and tourist industries are sacrificed to the oil economy. When the oil is depleted (as were the less expensive inland wells) and the roughnecking jobs are gone, there will be no backup economy, no fish to capture, no shrimp to harvest, no beaches to lure tourists; just dead animals covered in muck.

The lure of money is just too difficult for some to resist. Offshore drilling will continue. We need severe safety regulations and economic controls in place. But if greed is the problem, greed will be the only solution. As oil becomes more and more difficult to obtain, alternative energies will become by comparison more lucrative, hopefully sooner than later. The trouble with relying on market forces to solve our problems is that we’re essentially ceding our governance to the greedy.

Niccolo

06-19-2010, 12:59 AM

I was disappointed by Obama's response, to say the least. His insistence on calling the firm "British Petroleum" was quite appalling. As if the UK had somehow done this deliberately to America. Everyone who lives in the NE corner of the UK and/or is involved with the oil industry remembers Piper Alpha. That platform was owned by Occidental.

Obama needs to remember that we've had our disasters too. Just recently a gearbox problem with Super Puma helicopters led to some devastating incidents in the North Sea. The oil business is inherently risky. America of course is a major consumer of fuel, and the American government has always been happy enough to have big firms like BP working in their back yard to get oil, rather than pay other countries for it.

It's an indication though of how Obama thinks though, that he would make such racist comments. After all, BP (not "British Petroleum") has existed as a business entity since 2001, and prior to that, the firm was called BP Amoco (following a merger with Amoco in December 1998. ) If Obama wants to go back in time and talk about firms that were operating in the oil business years ago, then he needs to put whatever he wants to say about Britain in the proper context by remembering all the Brits working for Occidental who lost their lives on Piper Alpha.

Of course, there's absolutely no need to go down that road. Let's all go back to 1998 so I can slander the Brits? What a prick! What on earth did Obama think he would achieve by making racist comments in the face of a disaster?

Taking a slightly wider view, don't you think it's funny how Obama has only been in power for five minutes, and he's gone out of his way to insult and alienate both Israel and the UK?

Funny that, eh ... almost as if Obama has his own, secret, agenda.

That couldn't be true... could it?

trish

06-19-2010, 01:59 AM

http://www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=2010123&contentId=7059226

Racist comments? You're sooo funny. So Niccolo, have you been taking lessons from Joe Barton?

Niccolo

06-19-2010, 03:39 AM

Well I'm glad you find this sort of thing funny.

YouTube- Worst offshore disaster ever that left 167 dead. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdRcALtA8CE)

Go here. Keep laughing. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7491855.stm)

Go here too. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7487437.stm)

The point I was making that Obama's comments about "British Petroleum" were bang out of order. Inaccurate, unhelpful, and damaging. He's gone out of his way to attack British people, and British interests, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7815713/Barack-Obamas-attacks-on-BP-hurting-British-pensioners.html) instead of actually doing something to stop this leak. Of course it's easier for him in the short term if people in America follow his lead and blame "Britain" instead of giving him a hard time about it. Long term though, his remarks won't do a damn thing to help anyone who's been harmed by this disaster, and they certainly didn't do anythng to help the people who are actually trying to do something about it.

As I said, if Obama wants to go back to 1998 to find someone to point the finger at, he should put whatever he wants to say in context, keep going back, and remember the Brits who died working on an American platform in the North Sea.

I don't hear him saying fuck all about the British troops in Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/18/british-soldier-killed-in-afghanistan) and Iraq supporting the Americans either.

Nah, he bows - an American President who bows - to the Saudi king. Undermines Israel, and attacks the United Kingdom. The guy's a fucking disgrace!

Niccolo

06-19-2010, 03:49 AM

You might enjoy this one though ;-)

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3WNeTabAUY)

trish

06-19-2010, 05:30 AM

First you post that BP has nothing to do Britain and then you post a link to an article claiming that BP's fall in the market is going to hurt British pensioners. You can't have it both ways. No one but you is going back to 1998. So tell us, in 2010 what does the B and the P in BP stand for?:roll:

The point I was making that Obama's comments about "British Petroleum" were bang out of order. Inaccurate, unhelpful, and damaging. No, that's not the point you were making. Go back and read your own post. The point was to slander Obama by whining about an imagined slander against Great Britain and the British people. You are to be congratulated for the hilarity of such an oblique attempt to play the reverse racism card. It would have been truly funny had you not decided to exploit the tragedy of others simply to garnish your ridiculous diatribe.

Now let's get back to the real issue:

traLika

06-19-2010, 08:31 AM

Well said Trish. I'm British and it's obvious that Obama's words were not directed at Great Britain or the British people.

Niccolo

06-21-2010, 12:16 AM

trish

06-21-2010, 01:03 AM

The company BP has not been "British Petroleum" since 1998.Nevertheless, in everyday practice, the name “British Petroleum” refers to BP just as Niccolo refers to you. Just ask anyone on the street. It doesn’t refer to Great Britain. It doesn’t refer to the British people. You can’t say “British Petroleum” in a finger-pointing way and be pointing your finger at anyone but BP. The name refers directly to the present day company. Following the references of words in common vernacular isn’t rocket science, but you seem to have some trouble with it. Perhaps you’re confusing the formal use of legalese with the actual practices of natural language (but keep in mind, a presidential address is not legal brief, it’s a speech for everyday consumption). More likely you’re not as confused as you seem to be; you’re just clutching at imaginary straws, reluctant to give up on your bizarre slander that the president, for his own political gain, was out to denigrate the Brits who died in Afghanistan, who died on American oil rigs, died in American built helicopters etc. etc. etc. Yeah, right.

Niccolo

06-21-2010, 01:16 AM

Nevertheless, in everyday practice, the name “British Petroleum” refers to BP just as Niccolo refers to you. Just ask anyone on the street.- trishNo it doesn't. I live in the NE of Scotland, "oil captial of Europe" etc, and drive past one of the BP buildings every time I go into Aberdeen, and a lot of people in this corner of the world work in the oil industry. And in everyday practice, no one calls the firm "British Petroleum". I can honestly say that in all the discussions I've had with North Sea oil workers over the years, I've never heard those words being uttered by anyone, ever, in any context whatsoever.

Niccolo

06-21-2010, 01:33 AM

No one but you is going back to 1998. - trishIt's Obama and his flunkies who chose to use the name of a business that hadn't existed since 1998. Not me. What I have done is argue that the oil business is inherently risky. (In support of that, I referred to the recent Super Puma helicopter crashes over the North Sea - see link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7977095.stm)) The risks associated with the oil business are accepted by everyone who works offshore, which a lot of people around here do btw. I have family members working offshore as I write this. My best friend, who I grew up with, died in an accident offshore. Around the world, thousands of British oil workers are currently on platforms and driling ships owned by American firms. If the people working in the oil industry all over the world can accept the risks involved in what they're doing, then the governments buying their firms' oil should do the same. That includes America, who as we all know had that platform out in the Gulf of Mexico for a reason, after all.

I also said that if the President of the United States wants to time travel then he ought to put his remarks in context, and remember the people who lost their lives on an American platform called Piper Alpha, all those years ago. Because I can assure you, we all do.

If the President of the United States want to start using the term "British" in a descriptive way, then he ought to put his remarks in context and remember the people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8579889.stm) who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq supporting American troops.

Far from "garnishing" a "ridiculous diatribe" or engaging in a "bizarre slander" against the current American President, I have merely pointed out that he chose to describe a business entity operating in 2010 using words which had not been applicable for over a decade. If he didn't know enough about the history of one of the biggest firms in the world to call it by its proper name, then (as the leader of the free world) he's just flat out ignorant. I don't think Obama is that stupid, so that leaves his choosing to use such inaccurate language as a ploy to serve his own short-term political interests. Let's engage in a little xenophobia, eh? The shit's hit the fan; let's get the "folks" all riled up at someone ... someone else ... (just not me!)

Apparently it matters not to President Obama that the Deepwater Horizon was actually owned by Transocean, or that Andarko and MOEX Offshore (a subsidiary of Mitsui Oil Exploration Co. in Japan) were also involved in the exploration of Mississippi Canyon Block 252 (the rights to the tract were sold by the Minerals Management Service in 2008 ), or that Transocean, Haliburton and M-I Swaco had more people aboard the Deepwater Horizon than BP did. Or that the blowout preventer was owned by Transocean, and made by Cameron (a firm based in Houston, Texas.) Or that BP employ more than twice as many Americans as they do Brits. Or that Transocean have tried to limit their liability here to $27 million. Nah, Obama preferred to keep things simple and point the finger of blame at "British Petroleum", a business entity that hadn't even existed for more than a decade.

Obama and his flunkies went to great lengths to avoid saying "Islamic terrorism" or "jihad" after Nidal Malik Hasan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6512329/Fort-Hood-shooting-13-killed-and-30-injured-at-US-Army-base.html) shot all those people at Ford Hood, and when Faisal Shahzad (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/times-square-car-bomb-terrorist-arrest-following-the-tech-bread-crumbs/34020) tried to blow up a car in Times Square. Oh, they're very careful with their language there ...

Funny that, eh?

trish

06-21-2010, 01:35 AM

No it doesn't. Then why does Google and every other search engine yield links directly to and about BP when queried about British petroleum? Perhaps it's because these search engines, when it comes to that particular term, have a broader base of linguistic experience than do you. Perhaps these inert engines aren't quite as biased either.

Niccolo

06-21-2010, 03:50 AM

Then again maybe they are. Who can say how the Google search engine works? That's a closely guarded secret, isn't it? Anyhow, if you can't say how it works then it'll be extremely difficult for you to construct an argument, based on those very search engine protocols, about how language is used within, or without, the oil industry.

I can only repeat: I live in "the frozen north" and, as it happens, I go past a BP building almost every day (see attached photo or try this link (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?layer=c&cbll=57.198533,-2.181214&cbp=12,,,1,&cid=8479565909293789074&q=BP%20Dyce&ved=0CB0Q2wU&sa=X&ei=4cAeTPKdF8bTjAeFp9g7)). I have lived among oil workers for many years, have friends and family working offshore as we speak, I personally know people who have worked all over the world for many different oil firms, and I have never, ever heard anyone call the firm anything other than BP. The oil industry is a major player here, there are so many oil firms based in this area that I couldn't even begin to list them, and the oil business is discussed by everyone living here regularly, and in some depth. It's also written about extensively in the press, and talked about a fair bit on TV. I'm quite confident then, that when it comes to this particular matter, my "linguistic experience" is more extensive, and is more relevant, than yours happens to be.

Niccolo

06-21-2010, 04:06 AM

By the way (talking about the use of language) I'm puzzled about something. Why on earth does your President, in almost every video I see of him, insist on calling American citizens the "folks"? Don't you find that just a bit patronising? It's very strange.

trish

06-21-2010, 04:07 AM

So let’s review your argument: The U.S. President, in an address to the general public, uses “British Petroleum” as a reference to BP. But formally, BP is no longer British Petroleum. So (airtight logic leads to the conclusion that) either the President is inexcusably ignorant of this awesomely relevant fact or he’s snidely using the “British” in “British Petroleum” to cast blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster at the feet of Great Britain and the British people. These are the only two possible options. No other possibilities rise before your mind (if you say “British Petroleum” to any English speaker she will understand you to be referring to BP not withstanding). Then you take the southern fork of your dichotomy and enumerate all the tragedies you can google that involve Brits loosing lives because of the negligence of American companies since the date British Petroleum formally became BP. These accidents are sallied forth as if their grimness somehow bolsters the logic of the original airtight deduction: if Brits lost lives in American caused accidents in the past, then the President must be pointing his finger for this accident at Britain. And this he does for political gain!

Have I left anything out? [Oh, and you're better at interpreting what American's mean when they say they "British Petroleum" because you live in Scotland near a BP building.]

Niccolo

06-21-2010, 04:31 AM

That's not quite it, as I'm sure you know. (It's funny to see you talk about being "snide" in that post though. That amused me.) Care to try again?

trish

06-21-2010, 06:21 PM

That's not quite it ... Care to try again? So once again, your argument is as follows. The U.S. President, in an address to the general public, uses “British Petroleum” as a reference to BP. But formally, BP is no longer British Petroleum. So (airtight logic leads to the conclusion that) either the President is inexcusably ignorant of this awesomely relevant fact or he’s snidely using the “British” in “British Petroleum” to cast blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster at the feet of Great Britain and the British people. These are the only two possible options. No other possibilities rise before your mind (the fact that if you say “British Petroleum” to any English speaker she will understand you to be referring to BP not withstanding). Then you take the southern fork of your dichotomy and enumerate all the tragedies you can google that involve Brits loosing lives because of the negligence of American companies since the date British Petroleum formally became BP. These accidents are sallied forth as if their grimness somehow bolsters the logic of the original airtight deduction: if Brits lost lives in American caused accidents in the past, then the President must be pointing his finger for this accident at Britain. And this he does for political gain!

Have I left anything out? Oh, and you're better at interpreting what American's mean when they say they "British Petroleum" because you live in Scotland near a BP building (not, I repeat not, a British Petroleum building).

traLika

06-21-2010, 08:58 PM

Well you may hold the opinion that "it's obvious" why Obama said what he did. Perhaps though, you'd like to explain exactly why (in your opinion) Obama chose to point his finger at a non-existent business entity, instead of dealing with reality. Why was that "obviously" the best thing for an American President to do?

The company BP has not been "British Petroleum" since 1998, when they merged with Amoco. Like a lot of oil companies today, they're a global firm with interests in a lot of different countries all around the world.

Obama was wrong to say what he did. Either he didn't have a fucking clue about the history of one of the biggest firms in the world, and as President of America he damned well ought to; or Obama chose to finger-point using the name of a non-existent business entity in order to serve his own political interests.

Which of these was Obama "obviously" doing then?

Obama was clearly misinformed. He’s a politician and they all talk crap from time to time. No big deal and certainly no need to deduce any conspiracy theories out of it…

And to ask me “Why was that "obviously" the best thing for an American President to do?” is being rather presumptious. I never said it was obviously the best thing for an American President to do. You just made that up. All I said was “…it's obvious that Obama's words were not directed at Great Britain or the British people.” BIG difference.

BeardedOne

06-22-2010, 12:53 AM

I'm only catching the tail end of this, so excuse me if I drop a few points...

BP is, was, and always will be British Petroleum. I'm sorry, even stoopid people get that. I still have my Matchbox (Made by Lesney of the UK) tow trucks and pretrol tankers with the classic "BP" shield on them form the sixties. I knew, as a child, that the BP stood for British Petroleum. It's a no-brainer.

Over the years, through growth, evolution, and acquisition BP tried to shed both the 'British' and the 'Petroleum' from their image and thus the sunflower logo was born.

Now, as the gulf is muddied with tar balls and oil sheen, this great nation wants to both shed responsibility (I won't go into the pages of evidence against the various US regulatory agencies and their failures that have come to light as of late) and point the finger of blame.

So, it is British interests befouling the waters of the gulf with their Petrolium while we, as a nation, express our outrage and concern while ignoring the basic causes of this very issue.

It's spin. Make the other guy look so bad so that the populace doesn't notice that your fly is down and your junk is flappin' in the breeze.

This is yet another example of why I won't run for governor in 2012.

Niccolo

06-22-2010, 10:31 PM

BP is not now, and never will again be, "British Petroleum". It merged with an American oil firm in 1998, and consequently the business entity "British Petroleum" ceased to exist. Any intelligent person knows this.

And British interests? "Their" petroleum? Give me a break. The MMA sold the rights to that tract for $34 milliion, and that same federal agency also charged a royalty of almost 20% of any oil subsequently recovered by BP, Amarko and MOEX Offshore (who together hold the rights to Missisippi Canyon Block 252). And where do you think that "petroleum" (as you put it) went to? Don't you realise how much oil America consumes? The American government has all those different firms out drilling in American waters for a reason, you know - to serve American interests. That, my confused friend, is a "no-brainer".

I do hope that the leader of the free world doesn't base his decisions on his toys. That would be quite troubling. In fact, since he is a grown man, I would like to think that he doesn't play with toys any more, period. But hey, you go right ahead ... whatever makes you happy.

(Go here.) (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2013:11&version=ESV)

Niccolo

06-22-2010, 11:24 PM

Have I left anything out? Oh, and you're better at interpreting what American's mean when they say they "British Petroleum" because you live in Scotland near a BP building- trishThat's not quite it now, is it? Since you tried to argue that I was wrong to say that BP was called BP, based on what you imagined were the limitations of my "linguistic experience" I merely pointed out to you what you had no reason to know, after all - that for many years, I have lived and worked in an area which has been heavily involved in the oil industry. And I can assure you that BP is called BP by everyone within that industry. It just is, and that's all there is about it. So as I pointed out, in this particular instance my "linguistic experience" appears to be more extensive, and more relevant, than yours happens to be.

A few years ago, I took a course with the OU - actually the course they ran prior to this one (http://www3.open.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/course/u211.htm) - just out of interest, it had nothing whatsoever to do with my work. Just a bit of fun, you know how it is - a little hobby to keep me occupied in my time off. So when it comes to linguistics, I'm not completely in the dark. I haven't done too much work in this area, that course was about it. And I must confess I didn't try too hard during the course itself (it was after all only a bit of fun) and only put in any real effort when it came to the exam. The OU has an interesting system: the coursework and the exam are weighted 50-50, so one can cruise along doing a course, and then do some work for the exam and end up with a good result. As you can see from the attached screen capture (I logged into my old account and pulled up the course results just now) in this instance I got a "Distinction", and you can see that that was down to my figuring out how the system worked, and doing a little prep work for the exam. Anyway, the point is I have done some reading on the subject of linguistics. (Years ago, I grant you ...)

So when I said that BP is in fact called BP by all and sundry, I actually had something behind that statement. A little linguistics, and quite a lot of experience.

When you tried to say I was wrong to say that BP is actually called BP, you did so by questioning my "linguistic experience" - something you knew nothing about. You were wrong to do so, that's all I'm saying.

trish

06-23-2010, 12:00 AM

Since you tried to argue that I was wrong to say that BP was called BP Of course this is not the claim I made. I don't doubt for a minute that BP was called BP. My claim is that in everyday language people will generally understand "British Petroleum" as referring to the company with the formal designation BP. This seems to be the claim relevant to the President's speech that so upsets you. He used "British Petroleum" to refer to BP and everyone but you understood.

So let me update my understanding of your argument:

The U.S. President, in an address to the general public, uses “British Petroleum” as a reference to BP. But formally, BP is no longer British Petroleum. So (airtight logic leads to the conclusion that) either the President is inexcusably ignorant of this awesomely relevant fact or he’s snidely using the “British” in “British Petroleum” to cast blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster at the feet of Great Britain and the British people. These are the only two possible options. No other possibilities rise before your mind (the fact that if you say “British Petroleum” to any English speaker she will understand you to be referring to BP not withstanding). Then you take the southern fork of your dichotomy and enumerate all the tragedies you can google that involve Brits loosing lives because of the negligence of American companies since the date British Petroleum formally became BP. These accidents are sallied forth as if their grimness somehow bolsters the logic of the original airtight deduction: if Brits lost lives in American caused accidents in the past, then the President must be pointing his finger for this accident at Britain. And this he does for political gain!

Have I left anything out? Oh, and you're better at interpreting what American's mean when they say they "British Petroleum" because you live in Scotland near a BP building and you got a "Distinction" in a linguistics course that you took from Oxford.

BeardedOne

06-23-2010, 04:39 AM

Trish seems to get it, mostly.

Say what you will about whatever the current corporate structure or definition of BP is, but I fully understand that the term "British Petroleum" is being bandied about in an effort to redirect blame.

It's like a cat and a dog, sitting on opposite sides of a pile of shit and pointing at each other, barking/meowing "He did it!".

To Trish: The references aren't being made for political gain so much as administration triage and damage control. It's a wag-the-dog scenario. Whether or not BP turns out to be the ultimate villain in the story, the primary function is to divert the reader's attention from other crimes.

Niccolo

06-23-2010, 07:16 AM

Every time you repeat yourself I smile once again at you commenting on what you have chosen to call Obama's "snide" comment. As for your southern fork: it's interesting to see you continually ignore what I actually said several times now. Just to refresh your memory then:

Obama needs to remember that we've had our disasters too. Just recently a gearbox problem with Super Puma helicopters led to some devastating incidents in the North Sea. The oil business is inherently risky. America of course is a major consumer of fuel, and the American government has always been happy enough to have big firms like BP working in their back yard to get oil, rather than pay other countries for it.

What I have done is argue that the oil business is inherently risky. (In support of that, I referred to the recent Super Puma helicopter crashes over the North Sea - see link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7977095.stm)) The risks associated with the oil business are accepted by everyone who works offshore, which a lot of people around here do btw. I have family members working offshore as I write this. My best friend, who I grew up with, died in an accident offshore. Around the world, thousands of British oil workers are currently on platforms and driling ships owned by American firms. If the people working in the oil industry all over the world can accept the risks involved in what they're doing, then the governments buying their firms' oil should do the same. That includes America, who as we all know had that platform out in the Gulf of Mexico for a reason, after all.

And British interests? "Their" petroleum? Give me a break. The MMA sold the rights to that tract for $34 milliion, and that same federal agency also charged a royalty of almost 20% of any oil subsequently recovered by BP, Amarko and MOEX Offshore (who together hold the rights to Missisippi Canyon Block 252). And where do you think that "petroleum" (as you put it) went to? Don't you realise how much oil America consumes? The American government has all those different firms out drilling in American waters for a reason, you know - to serve American interests.

Have I left anything out? Oh, and you're better at interpreting what American's mean when they say they "British Petroleum" because you live in Scotland near a BP building and you got a "Distinction" in a linguistics course that you took from Oxford. - trishYes, you left out that in this particular instance, my "linguistic experience" (and, I suggest, my experience in the area of linguistics) is both more extensive and more relevant than yours. I argued for this, for two reasons. 1) You brought it up. 2) To show why I said what I did about BP being called BP by people within, and indeed without, the oil industry.

BeardedOne, yes I agree, the term was bandied about in an deflect attention away from the White House. Should attention be directed towards the White House? That's an interesting question.

Should it be aimed squarely at BP? That's an interesting question too, given the many different parties involved in the project.

trish

06-23-2010, 07:47 AM

I agree BP is called BP by people within and without. But that point is irrelevant to your argument, Mr. I got a Distinction in an Oxford linguistics course called "The English Language, Past, Present and Future". What your argument requires that "British Petroleum" is rarely if ever used to refer to BP, which unfortunately for your tiresome argument is not the case. "British Petroleum" is almost always understood to stand for BP. Why do you persist in ignoring this point? I repeat: Of course BP is called BP. My point is that your argument requires that "British Petroleum" doesn't refer to BP.

Look. It's perfectly understandable that you or anyone else might walk away from the President's speech with the impression that it was critical of Britain as well as of British Petroleum. I would disagree, but each of us has their own perspective. But to try to bolster your impression with pretense to a proof of the President's intention based on the ridiculous premise that "British Petroleum" doesn't refer to BP lacks intellectual integrity. Either that or it's just sophomoric stupidity.

Which Nation caused what disasters in the past is only relevant if someone were blaming a Nation for the current disaster. Perhaps that's why the speech made no mention of the British disasters of which you speak; i.e. the speech casts blame on British Petroleum, not Britain. But hey, I'm not claiming that this is proof of the President's intention, I'll leave that kind of inanity to you.

Niccolo

06-23-2010, 08:49 AM

What your argument requires that "British Petroleum" is rarely if ever used to refer to BP, which unfortunately for your tiresome argument is not the case.- trishI'm afraid in my "linguistic experience" which we've already established is more extensive and more relevant than yours, this is indeed the case. For many years now, I have lived in a part of the world where the oil industry is discussed regularly, and in depth. And no one ever calls BP anything other than BP. In any discussions about the oil industry in the national press and on TV, no one ever calls BP anything other than BP. The reason for this would be that BP is what the firm is actually called.

One can of course use inappropriate language to refer to someone, or some thing, and be understood. To give an extreme example, one could use deeply inappropriate and disrespectful language such as: "that adulterer who got his brains blown out in Dallas" which would be a shameful way to refer to the late President John F. Kennedy. But people would know who you were referring to. Obviously then, it's not good enough just to use language that allows one's listeners to understand who or what you are referring to. That's a very low standard to aim for indeed. And we're talking about the current President of America expressing his views on what is unquestionably a massive disaster here - one might say, if one wished to be so careful with language as the Obama administration has been up till now - a "man caused disaster". I really don't think we're asking too much if we expect the President of America to be careful what he says to "folks". His words, after all, carry some weight.

So the point I was driving at was not that the words "British Petroleum" cannot be understood to refer to the firm BP. Clearly, after hearing those words, one will (after a moment's thought, perhaps) understand that the speaker is referring to BP. My point would be that no one with "intellectual integrity" would choose to use the words "British Petroleum" to refer to BP - especially not in this situation, when an angry American public are looking to blame someone, and the President, by saying he aimed to kick someone's ass, has implied that "kicking someone's ass" is a good thing to be doing.

Whose ass should be kicked though? Well, that's the question, isn't it?

Here are some interesting facts to consider:

1. The firm British Petroleum has not existed since 1998.

2. In 1998 British Petroleum merged with an American oil firm (Amoco).

3. In 2000 BP merged with another American oil firm (Arco).

4. BP's board of directors is evenly split between American and British nationals.

5. BP employ 23 000 American nationals.

6. BP employ 10 000 British nationals.

7. BP have 7 000 staff based in Houston.

8. The chairman of BP is Carl Henric Svanberg, a Swedish national.

9. More than $4 billion was due to be paid by BP in dividends to American investors this year.

10. The Deepwater Horizon was owned by Transocean.

11. The rights to explore the tract (Mississippi Canyon 252) was sold at auction by the US Minerals Management Service in March 2008 for $34 million.

12. The MMS also charged a "royalty" of almost one fifth of revenue from any oil recovered from the tract.

13. Anadarko (an American oil company) own 25% of the rights to Mississippi Canyon 252.

14. MOEX Offshore (a subsidiary of Mitsui in Japan) own 10% of the rights to Mississippi Canyon 252.

15. Transocean, Haliburton and M-I Swaco had more employees aboard the Deepwater Horizon than BP.

16. The blowout preventer was owned by Transocean.

17. The blowout preventer was made by Cameron (who are based in Houston).

And moving on from that ...

18. The firm BP is called BP throughout the oil industry.

19. It is reasonable to expect the President of the United States to know the history of one of the largest oil firms in the world.

20. It is reasonable to expect the President of the United States to know who is on the board of one of the largest firms in the world.

21. It is reasonable to expect the President of the United States to know that BP employs 23 000 American nationals.

22. The current administration has shown concern about the way language is used by their officials.

23. It is reasonable therefore to expect the President of the United States to call BP by its correct name whenever he refers to that company. (From 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

I'd go on but I'm too tired, it's 8.05am and after yet another sleepless night I thinkI'll head off up the wooden hill. See ya.

trish

06-23-2010, 03:18 PM

Let’s review your argument, Niccolo, in your own words:

“I was disappointed by Obama's response, to say the least. His insistence on calling the firm "British Petroleum" was quite appalling. “

“It's an indication though of how Obama thinks though, that he would make such racist comments. After all, BP (not "British Petroleum") has existed as a business entity since 2001, and prior to that, the firm was called BP Amoco (following a merger with Amoco in December 1998. )”

“Obama was wrong to say what he did. Either he didn't have a fucking clue about the history of one of the biggest firms in the world, and as President of America he damned well ought to; or Obama chose to finger-point using the name of a non-existent business entity in order to serve his own political interests.”

The first remark is fine. You’re allowed to be appalled. It’s your reaction.

The second remark indicates how you think, or rather, how you don’t. The fact that BP is called by people in the oil industry BP is irrelevant to your conclusion. After all, the common referent of “British Petroleum” is BP. Neither your experience nor any of the twenty odd items you listed above provide one wit of evidence that the President’s remarks were “racist.”

You never quoted the President or gave us in a complete sentence what he was so wrong about, except the he used “British Petroleum” as billions of other people do, to refer to BP. If someone says “British Petroleum” it doesn’t follow that either they’re ignorant of the fact that the legal title of British Petroleum is BP, or that they’re referring to Great Britain. If it doesn’t follow for the ordinary speaker, it doesn’t follow for the President either.

I’m sorry but your awesome experience and your twenty three points fail to establish your claims.

Niccolo

07-24-2010, 12:32 AM

You can say that "billiions of people" call BP something other than BP till you're blue in the face, but you're wrong. And the fact that BP is called BP by all and sundry - after all, that's the name of the company - is indeed relevant. You can say it's not till you're blue in the face, but once again, you're wrong. And obviously the President of the United States is held to a higher standard than your average bloke. His words do, after all, carry a little bit more weight. You may try to say that's not so, but once again, you are wrong. If you're resorting to such a poor argument to make your case (whatever it is), then you've clearly lost this debate (or whatever it is).

It was however, quite amusing to see you claim you were about to examine the argument I had just presented, "in my own words" no less, and then not do so. Thanks for entertaining me throughout this thread.

In parting, I suggest you read what I wrote again.

Then read this article.

Vital warning systems on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig were switched off at the time of the explosion in order to spare workers being woken by false alarms, a federal investigation has heard.

The revelation that alarm systems on the rig at the centre of the disaster were disabled – and that key safety mechanisms had also consciously been switched off – came in testimony by a chief technician working for Transocean, the drilling company that owned the rig.

Mike Williams, who was in charge of maintaining the rig's electronic systems, was giving evidence to the federal panel in New Orleans that is investigating the cause of the disaster on 20 April, which killed 11 people.

Williams told the hearing today that no alarms went off on the day of the explosion because they had been "inhibited". Sensors monitoring conditions on the rig and in the Macondo oil well beneath it were still working, but the computer had been instructed not to trigger any alarms in case of adverse readings.

Both visual and sound alarms should have gone off in the case of sensors detecting fire or dangerous levels of combustible or toxic gases.

The evidence of deliberate dilution of the rig's safety mechanisms is likely to have wide ramifications for BP and Transocean, the world's largest offshore drilling company. It switches the spotlight of blame away from BP and towards the subcontractor which took the decisions. Of the 126 crew on board the rig on 20 April, seven worked for BP and 79 for Transocean. (Source: The Guardian, 23d July 2010. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/23/deepwater-horizon-oil-rig-alarms))

Niccolo

07-24-2010, 12:58 AM

YouTube- Engineer: Deepwater Horizon Alarm 'Inhibited' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9shhEjTeMhU)

trish

07-24-2010, 03:00 AM

You can say I'm wrong until your face is as red as a baboon's ass, but that doesn't make it so. Go to anyone in the street and ask them where the nearest British Petroleum station is. They will direct you to the nearest BP station.

You gave a lot of arguments. The one I take exception to is the one that concludes that Obama's remarks were racist. I see you gave up on that one, or that at least your most recent post doesn't take up that thread. Good for you.

[BTW, what's this stuff I hear about British Petroleum and the Lockerbie terrorists going free? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909 ]

rameses2

07-24-2010, 04:00 PM

[BTW, what's this stuff I hear about British Petroleum and the Lockerbie terrorists going free? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909 ]Yup, that's right! To secure future oil rights, BRITISH PETROLEUM leaned on the Prime Minister to facilitate the release of the Lockerbie bomber, allegedly:geek:. BTW, I love you, Trish:Bowdown:!!!

traLika

07-26-2010, 11:56 PM

And here's Tony Hayward's reward for his incompetence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10434908

Rogers

07-27-2010, 10:25 PM

[BTW, what's this stuff I hear about British Petroleum and the Lockerbie terrorists going free? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south+scotland-10645909 ]
It looked like he was going to be released after his appeal had been heard... because he was most likely innocent. And that would have been terribly embarassing. :oops: They gave the guy a break, and let him return to his family before he dies.
"Al-Megrahi was a desperate man, but I believe there are other desperate men and women – in the US Justice Department and in Whitehall, – all with their own reasons for wanting that appeal to be ditched. Now he is home, but he is still, officially, a guilty man."

"As for any inquiry, that's out there in the long grass. They are people in authority who are relying on Lockerbie fatigue setting in again. It mustn't."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christine-grahame-almegrahi-is-home-and-he-is-innocent-1776188.html
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=384142&rel_no=1

Libya was the evil bogeyman at the time, just like Iraq recently was, and Iran and South Korea are now. Surely you must see a trend by now. Iran is still the main suspect (see first link above). But it's always interesting to look at who runs or knows about the airport's security when these types of bombings and attempted bombings happen. ;)
http://www.mailstar.net/ostrovsky.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/lockerbie-heathrow-breakin-revealed-668981.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15362
ICTS International - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICTS_International)

"Only days before last night's crash, security forces in a number of European countries, including Britain, were put on alert after warnings from the Palestine Liberation Organization that extremists might launch terrorist attacks to undermine the dialogue between the United States and the PLO."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/archive/tol_archive/article6794731.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000

Rogers

08-10-2010, 03:25 AM

More on Lockerbie if you're interested:
CIA memos reveal doubts over 'key' Lockerbie witness
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-memos-reveal-doubts-over-key-lockerbie-witness-913918.html
Revealed: CIA offered $2m to Lockerbie witness and brother
http://www.heraldscotland.com/revealed-cia-offered-2m-to-lockerbie-witness-and-brother-1.866400
Vital Lockerbie evidence 'was tampered with'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/sep/02/theairlineindustry.libya
Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
http://www.physics911.net/pdf/scotsmancom_1855852005.pdf
Megrahi was framed (by John Pilger)
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/pilger-megrahi-justice

This one is seriously worth a listen to if you got the time. ;)
Libya and Lockerbie: The Untold Story
http://takingaimradio.com/mp3/takingaim090825.mp3

Operation Trojan
Taking Another Look at the Destruction of Pan Am 103
by Andrew I. Killgore
http://www.voltairenet.org/article164833.html#article164833
http://mailstar.net/ostrovsky.html

Known Israeli false flags against U.S. targets:
Lavon Affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Flag_of_Israel.svg" class="image" title="Flag of Israel"><img alt="Flag of Israel" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg/25px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d4/Flag_of_Israel.svg/25px-Flag_of_Israel.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)
Israel's plan was to bomb Western targets, make it seem as though Egypt was behind the attacks.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mi-figures-out-what-went-wrong-in-lavon-affair-55-years-later-1.4385
USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:USS_Liberty.jpg" class="image" title="The heavily damaged USS Liberty the day after the attack."><img alt="The heavily damaged USS Liberty the day after the attack." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/USS_Liberty.jpg/300px-USS_Liberty.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/a/a5/USS_Liberty.jpg/300px-USS_Liberty.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident)
Israeli communications said to prove IAF knew Liberty was U.S. ship
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israeli-communications-said-to-prove-iaf-knew-liberty-was-u-s-ship-1.230486
American Ambassador Recalls Israeli Assassination Attempt—With U.S. Weapons
http://washington-report.org/archives/november02/0211015.html

Einstein's 1948 warning letter:
http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~wilson/NYTimes1948.pdf