Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

From: dizzy
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:02:44 GMT

Your picture showed a 55 cent difference at the pump, not an 80 cent
difference, as you claimed.

Oh,you're right. The 80 cent difference was referenced in the article
header directly below the picture. Sorry that you saw some
unintelligble symbols under the picture. They're called 'words.'

That's funny. In your last post you said to me "you know how to read
a picture, don't you"? Now you want to backpedal.

They
said (for those that cannot read) the difference in pump price was "as
high as 80 cents less per gallon."

That's called 'heresay'.

In addition, here's a quote from the very
article you referenced:

quote
One sore spot is government subsidies for ethanol. John Hofland is
Minnesota Communications manager for Flint Hills Resources, which owns
the Pine Bend Refinery in Rosemount.

"The concern is, what role is the subsidy playing in artificially
dropping the price," says Hofland. "We just prefer competitive and
marketplace reasons for a certain price being what it is."
/quote

Yup. If you note in my response, I agreed that it was subsidized.

Then you admit that I'm right.

I also said you need to consider the billions in tax relief to Big Oil,
and also some of what we spend in foriegn aid to the middle east as a
subsidy to Big Oil.

So you quote a refinery manager. Good that you pick an unbiased person
to quote... LOL!

I guess you think that everything in the article that supports your
case is unbiased, while everthing that questions it is biased.
Classic dishonest illogic.

As I stated: There's no way it's that much cheaper unless it's
heavily subsidized.

I think the subsidy is about 40 cents per gallon.

Oh, you "think", huh? Don't you have any photos that disprove your
point? LOL

Remove that and, at a
difference of 50-80 cents (and it is 80 cents locally) it's still
cheaper.

Again you concede that I was right all along. I wrote "There's no
freaking way it's that much cheaper, unless it's heavily
subsidized", to which you responded "Surprize! It is that much
cheaper."

I was right. You were wrong.

Say, I noticed that you chose not to address the net energy gain with
ethanol. Why not?;-)

Actually, I already did. Suffering from reading comprehension
problems?