"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
I, for one, am looking forward to a
greater number of boating related posts from down Naples way.
When I'm boating and fishing, I spend less time here talking about
boating and fishing. But red tide is pretty thick here right now, so
expect more frequent posts...but don't hold your breath that they're
all about boating.
I figured you were busy trying to figure out how to help your president
out of the strategic corner he painted himself into.

You caught me. But now that he's out (45% approval rating according to
Rasmussen), I'm baaaaaaaaaaaccccckkk. ;-)


Oh noooo...not that flake Rasmussen again!

45% two days in a row.

But as he points out, it's the trend that matters.

"Since mid-May, the seven day rolling average data has shown slight but
steady improvement for the President. After bottoming at 38% mid-May, the
President’s numbers have gained a point every couple of weeks. Currently,
the 7-day rolling average shows the President’s Job Approval at 44%. That’s
also the best since mid-April. "

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection,
Chuck. I keep
asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not
answer.
But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it.

==========

He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and
he
is correct.

Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s,
nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given
price point, opportunities are on the demand side.


Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne.

Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've
heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24
months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a
threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs
is a valid reason for price jitters.

Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100%
of the time?

According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according
to those without a political axe to grind?

Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you:

"Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new
violence in XYZ country"

Explain the bias in that statement.

Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it.

I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is?

Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts.

Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you
see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS often?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news "NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection,
Chuck. I keep
asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not
answer.
But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it.
==========

He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group,
and he
is correct.

Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s,
nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given
price point, opportunities are on the demand side.

Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud,
Wayne.

Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times
you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the
last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes
were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around
oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters.

Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100%
of the time?
According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according
to those without a political axe to grind?
Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you:

"Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new
violence in XYZ country"

Explain the bias in that statement.
Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it.
I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is?
Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts.

Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do
you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS
often?


By this time next week, he'll be down again. Bet on it.

Have you ever seen me being as patient as this? :-)

--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:07:13 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
groups.com...

I, for one, am looking forward to a
greater number of boating related posts from down Naples way.

When I'm boating and fishing, I spend less time here talking about boating
and fishing. But red tide is pretty thick here right now, so expect more
frequent posts...but don't hold your breath that they're all about
boating.



You have to get back in the estuaries. I have been tracking this red
tide and Rocky Bay (Estero Bay) was clear. Fish were pretty thick and
the dolphins were feeding. Watch the salinity. If it gets much below 5
or 6 you are fairly safe.

I'm surprised the bay is that salty right now. With all of the freshwater
runoff from the rain, I'd have expected it to be very low salinity.

What are the waters around Lover's Key like right now? I was going to go
kayaking through the park, but decided against it due to the red tide (and
the fact that there is supposed to be 200+ jet skis at some rally there this
weekend).

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection,
Chuck. I keep
asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not
answer.
But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it.

==========

He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group, and
he
is correct.

Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s,
nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given
price point, opportunities are on the demand side.


Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud, Wayne.

Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times you've
heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the last 24
months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes were a
threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around oil rigs
is a valid reason for price jitters.

Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100%
of the time?

According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according
to those without a political axe to grind?

Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you:

"Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new
violence in XYZ country"

Explain the bias in that statement.

Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it.

I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is?

Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts.

Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do you
see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS
often?

Depends on the number and size of the options held by the institutional
guys.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 15:26:14 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Harry *does* have a point about the price/politics connection,
Chuck. I keep
asking a question that the 54% are uncomfortable with, and do not
answer.
But, you, of all people, should be able to answer it.

==========

He did answer it, told you it was off topic in a boating group,
and he
is correct.

Current high prices are a political failure of the 70s and 80s,
nothing recent. The supply side is realtively fixed for any given
price point, opportunities are on the demand side.


Here...grab this rope before you sink any further in the mud,
Wayne.

Do you listen to the news at all? Think of the last 100 times
you've heard about price increases for a barrel of oil during the
last 24 months. Now, forget the reports you heard when hurricanes
were a threat. That leaves 90% of the reports. A hurricane around
oil rigs is a valid reason for price jitters.

Now, for the remaining 90%, what's the reason mentioned almost 100%
of the time?

According to the NY Times, Washington Post, CBS, etc.? Or according
to those without a political axe to grind?

Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you:

"Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new
violence in XYZ country"

Explain the bias in that statement.

Bias? None. But there's plenty of opinion in it.

I agree. Whose opinion would you say it is?

Probably some options trader who's long in oil contracts.

Right. Now, when there's LESS nonsense going on in the middle east, do
you see price volatility being blamed on that reason MORE often, or LESS
often?

Depends on the number and size of the options held by the institutional
guys.

.....which is all a matter of opinion and guesswork. That should be illegal.

Jim wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Charlie" wrote in message
news:mN2dnbQins5JSSLZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews. com...

basskisser wrote:


To what end?? Holy Mackerel! JimH comes here and stirs so much ****
for so long of a time that he turned EVERYBODY against him. Then he
comes back and acts like a nice little puppy who has never done
anything wrong, and abmonishes anybody who even dares to post something
off topic or inflammatory. He needs to clean up his own yard before
bitching about somebody else's. And it appears that you're eating it up
like chum!


Calm down pointy head.

JimH is *our* new Skipper. Stay tuned for his 'Sea of Cortez' report.

-- Charlie

This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means
anything to you, E-mail me
Jim


Don't think it's the same Charlie.

Eisboch

(on the boat, new refrig installed, beer cooling down, awaiting tropical
storm Beryl)


WHO?


That storm is supposed to hit us on the weekend. What the
#$$%%$...always on the weekend!

"Jim" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
ink.net...

This doesn't sound like the Charlie I know, but if Chester's means
anything to you, E-mail me
Jim


Don't think it's the same Charlie.

Eisboch

(on the boat, new refrig installed, beer cooling down, awaiting tropical
storm Beryl)

WHO?


Beryl or Charlie?

Who's on first?

The Charlie I am refering to had "Wavelength"

The Beryl I am refering to is loosing strength and heading more easterly.
The annual shark tournament is going on tomorrow and Saturday based out of
Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vineyard. Bunch of boats pulled in here at Kingman to
await the weather forecast. Good for me, as I got lots of help hauling the
new refrig down to the boat and removing the old one. Couple of beers goes
a long ways.

Eisboch

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:11:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Hopefully, Wayne will respond on his own. For you:

"Oil prices jumped $2.00 a barrel today, on fears surrounding new violence
in XYZ country"

Explain the bias in that statement.

Oil prices are determined in an open auction market, no one "sets"
them. It's all supply and demand, just like the stock market.
Uncertainty in the middle east brings out the speculators who buy some
oil for future delivery on the hope that prices will rise even further
and they can resell their contract for a profit, not unlike buying a
house in a rising market in the hope you can resell quickly at a
profit. And just like the any other market, speculation on rising
prices drives things up even more until a bubble is created, or until
supply catches up with demand. The problem with the oil market is
that it takes years for new supply to be created, and increases in
demand by former third world countries have been out running supply
increases for a while now.

Not as exciting as some of the cockamamie conspiracy theories that get
launched at the barber shop or Joe's tavern, but that's pretty much
the way it works.