O'Malley's rebuttal letter to C20
06-25-2012 | 09:51 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Likes: 0
I get emotional, that's funny. What is wrong is you abusing your power. The fact is that the terms of service of this board did not prohibit posting the rebuttal. YOU ALONE decided what is fair and not fair. Your decision was based solely on your view that you want this TA to fail. You have no problem allowing one sided slanted lies that are spewing out of georgetg and the DPA crowd. Nope, that gets posted with no problem. In fact you take up with their falsehoods as if it were fact.
Now when something gets posted that doesn't fit YOUR STANDARD of fairness, then you delete it without any excuse other than you felt like it. You are just a hypocrite whose standard of fairness depends upon whether you agree with the side that is posting.
So what is sad is you abusing your power as moderator to control content you don't like. You are supposed to control content that is outside the terms of service of this board and not what you disagree with. You are nothing but a sad little hypocrite that is now trying to justify his actions with more bluster and attack.
Now when something gets posted that doesn't fit YOUR STANDARD of fairness, then you delete it without any excuse other than you felt like it. You are just a hypocrite whose standard of fairness depends upon whether you agree with the side that is posting.
So what is sad is you abusing your power as moderator to control content you don't like. You are supposed to control content that is outside the terms of service of this board and not what you disagree with. You are nothing but a sad little hypocrite that is now trying to justify his actions with more bluster and attack.
06-25-2012 | 03:21 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
This was at the bottom of TT's letter:
In the end, TO's letter is up and TT's by his request is not. It was less than 15 hours from the time Alfa posted it until it was back. It wasn't the end of the world.
Alfa's response however was whiny. Just say you have permission to post it, nobody would doubt that he would have permission, end of story.
Any reproduction or reposting of this message outside of an ALPA website without permission is strictly prohibited.
Why would it be unreasonable to think that TO's letter would not have the same restrictions? I think it was smart to wait for permission from both TO and TT before this feud gets aired here. In the end, TO's letter is up and TT's by his request is not. It was less than 15 hours from the time Alfa posted it until it was back. It wasn't the end of the world.
Alfa's response however was whiny. Just say you have permission to post it, nobody would doubt that he would have permission, end of story.
Can someone please explain why TT gets to decide if TO's letter is posted on APC?
Seems like a stretch to me.
06-25-2012 | 03:23 PM
#63
Thread Starter
Da Hudge
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,473
Likes: 0
From: Poodle Whisperer
06-26-2012 | 06:51 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
I was hoping some experts would sound off on this refinery business, if you don't mind please expand on this analysis, I am very interested in the future prospects of this endeavor.
06-27-2012 | 06:52 AM
#67
Banned
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Not an expert, here is what Conoco said with a few comments:
“After exploring a wide range of alternatives for the refinery, the decision to sell is based on the level of investment required to remain competitive,” said Willie Chiang, senior vice president of Refining, Marketing, Transportation and Commercial. “U.S. East Coast refining has been under severe market pressure for several years. Product imports, weakness in motor fuel demand, and costly regulatory requirements are key factors in creating this very difficult environment. This action is consistent with our stated strategic objective to reduce our refining portfolio,” added Chiang.
They had and didn't want it, same so it seems with most other majors when it comes to refineries, which considering it is impossible to permit a new refinery must mean something. Refineries are environmental time bombs, as I recall Exxon couldn’t even give the Benicia Refinery away until they agreed to take care of any future cleanup in perpetuity. Hope DAL got the same guarantee on environmental in this deal. Apparently, refineries are always on the block for the same reasons, cyclically profitable and the least profitable part of the oil business at that, never ending capital intensive EPA related expenses on top of what is capital intensive to begin with. Seems the majors think there are better ways to make money in oil than in refining it. There ain't that much margin to be had and sometimes none, so how is DAL gonna save so much getting into refining?
But, none of that means anything, core competence means something and DAL ain’t got it in anything going on at Trainer, PA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
