DEAR VICTOM OF FUEL BARONS,
Gas prices have sored upward for the past several
months and they don't seem to be leveling off anytime
soon. I suggest a gas boycott to take place the first
weekend of August 2005. The start date of the boycott
will officially be MIDNIGHT August 5 and will end on
MIDNIGHT August 8 2005. The best way for this to work
is to get the message to THE MAJORITY OF people THAT
we can and to do this we need TO WORK TOGETHER.
Forward this email to everyone in your address book,
tell all your friends and family. On August 5-8 of
2005 we are not going to buy any gasoline for four
days. If you have friends in the press/media let them
know about this boycott. Tell them we are sick of
being robbed by the oil barons. Tell the world, that
on August 5-8 of 2005 we are not going to buy fuel.
For an added bonus I suggest everyone call in sick on
Friday the 5th and Monday the 8th and not even drive a
Motor Vehical for the four day boycott. I understand
that this is not likely to happen but it would
definately be the first of its kind and you would have
the satisfaction of knowing you were a part of it.
make t-shirts and buttons AND GIVE THEM AWAY. Lets
make it a national holiday. NO MORE HIGH GAS PRICES
WEEKEND.
The time is now and we ARE THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT
NATION, IT IS TIME TO UNITE AND STAND UP FOR OUR
RIGHTS FOR AFFORDIBLE GAS PRICES. Do not hesitate to
click forward and add names in your address book and
click send, it is so easy. Then on August 5-8 of 2005 DO YOUR PART AND
simply make plans to stay at home, take a walk, ride a
bike or any other activity that will assist you in not
driving a motor vehicle.
copy and paste this to every forum board, in everyemail you send. spread the message as fastest you can.
Aren't we forgetting the real culprit here. The government could easily cut those heavy gas taxes since they are getting far more revenue than originally counted on. In Canada, 45% of the price of gas is tax. There is even tax on some of the tax! Government at all levels have learned that gasoline is the perfect conduit for siphoning tax money from the people. And they are only too glad to let the oil companies take all the blame.
Katherine
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 | 08:03 PM
Or even better, we could learn to use alternate fuel sources, as petroleum is not a renewable resource.
But no, we couldn't allow that because gasoline sales are far too profitable...
Google "Travis Stutzman", which is the name of the guy who supposedly wrote the above spam request.
There's a few badass TS's out there....
Everything from bomb making to child molesting.
Not saying this is the same guy, I was just curious as to see what showed up. And a lot did.
Katherine
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 | 10:30 PM
Well, if we just revert to bicycles for all our transportation needs for the next few million years, all of our petroleum problems will be solved! No worries!
As the kids say, "In the long run, we're all dead." Or was that Keynes...?
Katherine
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 | 10:31 PM
P.S. Because Travis Stutzman is such a common name...like John Smith, really.
The last time I checked, 'non' plus 'renewable' equalled nonrenewable.
So, if the definition of 'nonrenewable' is right, well, then this dictionary cannot be trusted, now can it? Not all of these three definitions can be correct.
Nonrenewable would mean that it could NEVER be replenished. Oil can. It just takes thousands of years, like I said.
"renewable resources include resources with widely different cycling times, some so long as to make the resources essentially nonrenewable. Fossil and nuclear fuels and minerals also exhibit a wide range of properties that affect their management. Fossil fuels, such as coal and petroleum, are the least renewable of such resources"
Least renewable, meaning that they ARE renewable.
Katherine
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 12:06 AM
In general, dictionaries are both prescriptive and descriptive to some extent--prescriptive in that they tell you how a word should properly be used, descriptive in that they change to reflect common usage once it becomes prevalent. They have to strike a balance; they don't want language to be set in stone, and they want there to be change and growth as the language evolves. Yet at the same time, they don't want us to become a society of illiterate jackals...dictionary-compiling is a very tricky business.
I would take it that the prescriptive part of the definition of "nonrenewable" is, well, "resources that are not renewable." However, the dictionary is descriptive when it invokes the common usage of "any natural resource that cannot be replenished by natural means at the same rates that it is consumed." Heaven knows most people here have heard that usage, and if it's deemed to be prevalent enough to be put in the dictionary (the entry in question is culled from a Webster's dictionary, which is generally considered fairly reliable), then it's not "incorrect."
Language isn't always like mathematics; a + b doesn't always equal a-and-b; sometimes it equals q! Just think of pine + apple...goose + berry...grape + fruit. Sometimes the component parts of a word have very little to do with the meaning of its entirety.
I hope that doesn't come off as too rude, but do you see what I mean at all?
Katherine
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 12:13 AM
From the Encyclopedia Britannica (article?) you quoted from: "renewable resources include resources with widely different cycling times, some so long as to make the resources essentially nonrenewable."
I would assume that such is the origin of the common usage: ESSENTIALLY nonrenewable, meaning that it's not practical to think that they will be renewed in time for them to be really useful to mankind at any time in the remotely forseeable future.
On the one hand, it's not correct to say nonrenewable, as it will be renewed eventually. But on the other hand, it's perfectly correct to say nonrenewable in the popular sense of "cannot be renewed quickly enough to be practical."
intelligent
nonintelligent
sense
nonsense
abusive
nonabusive
The prefix non- added to any word means NOT "that word"
It can not be any simpler than that.
Common usage of a word does not give that word a new meaning. Take the word gay for example. The way it is used today can mean many things, but that does not negate the original meaning. New usage may ADD to that meaning, but it can't change the essential meaning itself.
The meaning of the prefix 'non' and the word 'renewable' do not change when added together.
If they did, that would mean that the original meaning of one of the root words is then wrong.
Do YOU see what 'I' mean?
P.S. I just previewed my post, the words at the top were picked off the top of my head, and did not relate to what you said, I hope you don't take them that way, as they kind of seemed that way when I re-read them. Sorry, offense was not meant by my examples.
And I feel I must leave a quote here...
"Can it be semantics generating the mess we're in?" - nofx
Katherine
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 | 12:45 AM
No, the prevalent usage of the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" doesn't change the original meaning of the word ("light-hearted, happy"), but it adds another correct way to use it. So it's correct to use gay to mean homosexual, AND it's correct to use gay to mean happy. They're not mutually exclusive. There is nowhere off in the clouds someplace where the word "gay" has this ULTIMATE, ESSENTIAL MEANING FOR ALL TIME. It has the way it was originally used, which is perfectly correct, and then it has additional--equally correct!--meanings that it has acquired over time. The correctness of the original usage is not altered, but there are additional, equally correct ways of using the words.
"The meaning of the prefix 'non' and the word 'renewable' do not change when added together. If they did, that would mean that the original meaning of one of the root words is then wrong."
I have no idea what you mean by this. Why would this necessarily make them "wrong"? What exactly do you mean by "wrong"?
Strictly speaking, the usage nonrenewable as in non + renewable is incorrect because petroleum will eventually renew itself.
But this is over a period of millions of years, which, as the article you quoted notes, makes it ESSENTIALLY nonrenewable. That is the way "nonrenewable" is popularly used--"renewable, but it takes so long that it's impractical to depend upon anyone using it within the near future." This very common usage is NOT incorrect, either.
The two meanings of "nonrenewable" are not at all mutually exclusive. It can mean either "not + renewable" or "not renewable effectively speaking within the near future" and both can be equally correct depending on what you mean to say, just like gay can be used differently depending on whether you're referring to happiness or homosexuality.
"I just previewed my post, the words at the top were picked off the top of my head, and did not relate to what you said, I hope you don't take them that way, as they kind of seemed that way when I re-read them. Sorry, offense was not meant by my examples."
Ahahahaha. You know, I would never have noticed that if you hadn't so discreetly pointed it out...
