Singapore petrol is still the cheapest in the world?
-
where is the article?
has this become speakers' corner crapbox? or has it become a place where ppl can throw allegations without facts?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I guess TS really has no balls to even admit his rubbish, as pointed out in the 7 points on page 14.
And everyone can see he has to consistently evade showing his korean article because he has no balls to do so.
OK this if FINAL!!If I can show you the article, are you going to apologies to me for saying that I am sprouting nonsense and promise that you will never reply to any of my thread and post ever again?
DEAL or NO DEAL?
-
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
OK this if FINAL!!If I can show you the article, are you going to apologies to me for saying that I am sprouting nonsense and promise that you will never reply to any of my thread and post ever again?
Why should I?
Unless you can prove to me that the 7 points I raised on the last post on page 14 were not rubbish. That was where I said you spouted rubbish.
The demand for your korean article was for us to look at your accountability, which I have not even accused you of yet.
-
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
OK this if FINAL!!If I can show you the article, are you going to apologies to me for saying that I am sprouting nonsense and promise that you will never reply to any of my thread and post ever again?
DEAL or NO DEAL?
end up u just want to play game.. zzz.. -
Reposted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
If no, why are you saying that I am sprouting rubbish? Are you a DICK?EAGLE : Seems like TS likes to spout rubbish
I said you spout rubbish because
1. You cannot raise any counter to the Luxembourg example
2. You use Malaysia as an example even though you said not to mention non-oil producing countries
3. You saidAre you ready to defend your theory if I start questioning you?
when you cannot even ask any sensible questions after being challenged.
4. You tried to compare average miles driven even though we are talking about prices
5. You didn't know what is GDP (PPP) and tried to use the non-PPP version to prove the wiki and CIA source wrong.
6. You tried to tell us that real disposable income is a more reliable indicator than GDP per capita (PPP) without understanding how GDP is calculated, and when challenged, is not able to use it to prove otherwise.
7. You tell me I was saying that wiki is wrong when I was merely countering your logicand lastly, of the greatest rubbish
And did you edit this post after reading what I wrote to Evangel?
In which I have written the post on 29th June 9.10 pm when you wrote it at 30th June 12.52 am
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:By asking me that question is only goes to show you are as dumb as a sheep can be. or should I say you are letting a blind man giving your a ride home
Are you aware that flying frog has made a huge blunder in the above statement?
How on earth can you use S$ petrol price and divide it with US$ per capita GDP?
And btw, Singapore per capita GDP in 2007 is S$52994, not S$49700 and in 2007, petrol price is still below S$2 per L
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gdp.html
If petrol price / per capita GDP is a good indication of affordability, then can I say that Singapore petrol price is actually "cheaper" than in Malaysia, a net oil exporter?
Before you made the above statement have you ever ask yourself if GDP is a reliablie indicator to make that conclusion? Have you consider using real disposable income as comparison?
Plus, have you also consider the average miles an average driver have to travel in luxembourg as compared to Singapore?
Conclusion? More like half fuck anaylsis good enough for the dumb and blind. Eagle, are you sure you are a scholar and not a faker? And you know what, I am so glad that you are not a PAP supporter because if you are, I think I am going to give up on PAP too.
Anyway, I am still waiting for someone to tell me which non-oil producing developed country offers cheaper diesel and petrol than Singapore.
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:Flying frog, how can a scholar make such stupid mistake? I bet you didnt even realise how dumb you are until I bring this up isnt it? And did you edit this post after reading what I wrote to Evangel? I think my P6 cousin can do better than you in that area.
Conclusion? More like a half fuck analysis created by some wannabe who think he is capable of reinventing the wheel.
The PPP exchange-rate calculation is controversial because of the difficulties of finding comparable baskets of goods to compare purchasing power across countries.
Estimation of purchasing power parity is complicated by the fact that countries do not simply differ in a uniform price level; rather, the difference in food prices may be greater than the difference in housing prices, while also less than the difference in entertainment prices. People in different countries typically consume different baskets of goods. It is necessary to compare the cost of baskets of goods and services using a price index. This is a difficult task because purchasing patterns and even the goods available to purchase differ across countries. Thus, it is necessary to make adjustments for differences in the quality of goods and services. Additional statistical difficulties arise with multilateral comparisons when (as is usually the case) more than two countries are to be compared.
Isn't it obvious from the previous examples that you were spouting rubbish?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
u actually need motivation before u are willing to prove urself.. how stupid is that..?
-
Originally posted by purpledragon84:
u actually need motivation before u are willing to prove urself.. how stupid is that..?
He is afraid of me proving him a total idiot again in the future, that's why that 'dare' and 'motivation'
I have yet to say he spouted nonsense because of the korean petrol price, yet this idiot wants to consistently force it down our throats that I said it. How much more idiotic and stupid can he get, I wonder.
-
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
I have quoted the article to you several times already. Please do back to the page when you start talking about Taiwan and you will be able to find it.
Your article is outdated like the gas prices earlier. From January 2005 the oil reserves of 4 million has dropped by 1.6 million barrels to 2.4 million barrels in January 2006.It's not June 2008. Maybe you can post updated information.
The KMT caucus leader has already stated that Taiwan has no more oil reserves. Something which you fail to provide an explanation for.
According to January 1, 2005 estimates by the Oil and Gas Journal, Taiwan's proven oil reserves are approximately 4 million barrels. Total oil production for 2005 is expected to be 8,404 bbl/d, of which 800 bbl/d is crude. Oil consumption for 2005 is estimated at 1,045,000 bbl/d. The majority of the oil is consumed by the industrial sector. Most of Taiwan's crude oil imports come from the Persian Gulf, though West African countries also are important suppliers.
According to Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Taiwan had 2.4 million barrels of proven oil reserves in January 2006. During the first half of 2006, Taiwan produced 7,910 barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil, of which only 800 bbl/d was crude oil. Almost 90 percent of Taiwan’s oil production comes in the form of refinery gain, resulting from the country’s large petroleum refining sector. EIA forecasts that Taiwan will consume 973,000 bbl/d of oil in 2006, virtually all of which will come from imports.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Taiwan/Oil.html
US$1.11 = SG$1.5096
The price of unleaded gasoline will rise to 33.9 Taiwan dollars (1.11 US) per litre from 30 Taiwan dollars. The price of diesel fuel jumps to 31.9 Taiwan dollars per litre from 27.5 Taiwan dollars.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/350428/1/.html
The DPP's proposal has won the backing of ruling Kuomintang legislators. Chang Hsien-yao, a KMT caucus leader, pointed out that Taiwan does not produce oil, but has to rely on imports for all crude oil and gasoline products.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Your article is outdated like the gas prices earlier. From January 2005 the oil reserves of 4 million has dropped by 1.6 million barrels to 2.4 million barrels in January 2006.It's not June 2008. Maybe you can post updated information.
The KMT caucus leader has already stated that Taiwan has no more oil reserves. Something which you fail to provide an explanation for.
According to January 1, 2005 estimates by the Oil and Gas Journal, Taiwan's proven oil reserves are approximately 4 million barrels. Total oil production for 2005 is expected to be 8,404 bbl/d, of which 800 bbl/d is crude. Oil consumption for 2005 is estimated at 1,045,000 bbl/d. The majority of the oil is consumed by the industrial sector. Most of Taiwan's crude oil imports come from the Persian Gulf, though West African countries also are important suppliers.
According to Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Taiwan had 2.4 million barrels of proven oil reserves in January 2006. During the first half of 2006, Taiwan produced 7,910 barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil, of which only 800 bbl/d was crude oil. Almost 90 percent of Taiwan’s oil production comes in the form of refinery gain, resulting from the country’s large petroleum refining sector. EIA forecasts that Taiwan will consume 973,000 bbl/d of oil in 2006, virtually all of which will come from imports.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Taiwan/Oil.html
US$1.11 = SG$1.5096
The price of unleaded gasoline will rise to 33.9 Taiwan dollars (1.11 US) per litre from 30 Taiwan dollars. The price of diesel fuel jumps to 31.9 Taiwan dollars per litre from 27.5 Taiwan dollars.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/350428/1/.html
for someone who has nothing to show for other than being an `elak king', i wouldn't have taken the trouble....i doubt he can comprehend this anyway.
and you wait, he will spin this around `better than pete tong' and defect the questions back to you.
-
After reading on what's going on, it is likely TS is:
1. Low IQ
2. A child
either way he DOESNT have the article to back up his claim.
If he had had it then he would have posted it and we would agree with him including if the article is of a reliable source.
TS, it seems to me that you are playing a cat and mouse game with the others. You are either stalling them to give you time to find the article that you saw or avoiding to post the article because you made it up. So which is it?
Its obviously childish of you.
"If I can give you the article, then you have to apologise" . What bull is this? And you said 'IF' means, you dont have the article.
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
After reading on what's going on, it is likely TS is:
1. Low IQ
2. A child
either way he DOESNT have the article to back up his claim.
If he had had it then he would have posted it and we would agree with him including if the article is of a reliable source.
TS, it seems to me that you are playing a cat and mouse game with the others. You are either stalling them to give you time to find the article that you saw or avoiding to post the article because you made it up. So which is it?
Its obviously childish of you.
"If I can give you the article, then you have to apologise" . What bull is this? And you said 'IF' means, you dont have the article.
he is busy `doctoring' his `facts'; but being him, he probably messed it up, so it is taking longer than usual.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Reposted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said you spout rubbish because
1. You cannot raise any counter to the Luxembourg example
2. You use Malaysia as an example even though you said not to mention non-oil producing countries
3. You saidwhen you cannot even ask any sensible questions after being challenged.
4. You tried to compare average miles driven even though we are talking about prices
5. You didn't know what is GDP (PPP) and tried to use the non-PPP version to prove the wiki and CIA source wrong.
6. You tried to tell us that real disposable income is a more reliable indicator than GDP per capita (PPP) without understanding how GDP is calculated, and when challenged, is not able to use it to prove otherwise.
7. You tell me I was saying that wiki is wrong when I was merely countering your logicand lastly, of the greatest rubbish
In which I have written the post on 29th June 9.10 pm when you wrote it at 30th June 12.52 am
Isn't it obvious from the previous examples that you were spouting rubbish?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle, please dont try to make up fairytale just to tell the world that you have balls. If you have what it takes to bring me down with your stupid dumb ass luxembourg formula, do you think you can wait till now to bring this up??
The reason why NO ONE in this forum, I repeat, NO ONE, not even MAURIZIO, is interested to comment on your stupid little Luxumbourg conclusion is because it is CRAP, and within that CRAP there lies more crap, it contain stupid calculation error which took you 72 hours and countless attempt of self glorifying to release. The best part is that, the error is so basic and obvious that a primary 6 kid would have noticed it right away.
The is the exact words from you, not some cut and paste BS like you have created above to enlarge your fake manhood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Please show us the link to prove.I have nothing to hide, all excerpts from news article and government reports.
EAGLE : Seems like TS likes to spout rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry, I cant be bother to put words in your mouth, I will put a ton of shit in your mouth for being a slimy little coward
Please stop acting like a spineless sissy coward lah..call yourself a scholar? Might as well cut off your manhood and become a x-dresser.
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
After reading on what's going on, it is likely TS is:
1. Low IQ
2. A child
either way he DOESNT have the article to back up his claim.
If he had had it then he would have posted it and we would agree with him including if the article is of a reliable source.
TS, it seems to me that you are playing a cat and mouse game with the others. You are either stalling them to give you time to find the article that you saw or avoiding to post the article because you made it up. So which is it?
Its obviously childish of you.
"If I can give you the article, then you have to apologise" . What bull is this? And you said 'IF' means, you dont have the article.
Are you going to apologies to me if I can show you the article? -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Your article is outdated like the gas prices earlier. From January 2005 the oil reserves of 4 million has dropped by 1.6 million barrels to 2.4 million barrels in January 2006.It's not June 2008. Maybe you can post updated information.
Do you trust your politcian? -
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
Eagle, please dont try to make up fairytale just to tell the world that you have balls. If you have what it takes to bring me down with your stupid dumb ass luxembourg formula, do you think you can wait till now to bring this up??
The reason why NO ONE in this forum, I repeat, NO ONE, not even MAURIZIO, is interested to comment on your stupid little Luxumbourg conclusion is because it is CRAP, and within that CRAP there lies more crap, it contain stupid calculation error which took you 72 hours and countless attempt of self glorifying to release. The best part is that, the error is so basic and obvious that a primary 6 kid would have noticed it right away.
The is the exact words from you, not some cut and paste BS like you have created above to enlarge your fake manhood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAGLE : Seems like TS likes to spout rubbish
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry, I cant be bother to put words in your mouth, I will put a ton of shit in your mouth for being a slimy little coward
Please stop acting like a spineless sissy coward lah..call yourself a scholar? Might as well cut off your manhood and become a x-dresser.
Other than your ability to take a sentence and twist it to suit your delusion, I presume you are unable to prove that you did not spout rubbish and silently skunk away like a sissy because you cannot bear to admit any wrong?
Duh. I dare to admit my calculations and amended it a full 3 plus hours before you, and you still have the cheek to claim that it was because I read your post that I changed it? Wow. Your skin is indeed thick.
So where have you seen me said that you spout rubbish because of your korean petrol price. Please point out. I have highlighted the important part for your slow mind.
-
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
Are you going to apologies to me if I can show you the article?
Why should I? I just stated the facts. Its either you have the article or you dont. Which I doubt you do.Delaying tactic.
Anyways, I dont need an unexisting korean article to prove that singapore petrol is the cheapest in the world. I know that its NOT.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Other than your ability to take a sentence and twist it to suit your delusion, I presume you are unable to prove that you did not spout rubbish and silently skunk away like a sissy because you cannot bear to admit any wrong?
Duh. I dare to admit my calculations and amended it a full 3 plus hours before you, and you still have the cheek to claim that it was because I read your post that I changed it? Wow. Your skin is indeed thick.
So where have you seen me said that you spout rubbish because of your korean petrol price. Please point out. I have highlighted the important part for your slow mind.
If I can show you the article, would you apologies to me and say you will never reply to any of our post and thread forever.DEAL or NO DEAL?
-
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
Do you trust your politcian?
Yes. -
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
If I can show you the article, would you apologies to me and say you will never reply to any of our post and thread forever.DEAL or NO DEAL?
You have yet to prove to me that you have not spouted rubbish as per the points above. That is the main subject of contention between us. Any reason why you consistently like to bring in unrelated context?
You give a satisfactory explanation why I should apologize for you to show the article when our discussion is about Luxembourg, in which I have already proven you to be rubbish and of no substance, then I deal with you.
-
Originally posted by £ Ĭ €Ú°:
If I can show you the article, would you apologies to me and say you will never reply to any of our post and thread forever.DEAL or NO DEAL?
About the SG$1.50 per liter?The price should be more like SG$1.90 per liter under normal market conditions, the SG$1.50 was subsidised. Whereas the SG$1.50 per litre for Taiwan is slightly subsidised, it should be in the range of SG$1.80 to SG$1.90, because currently the government taxes $0.44 per litre, current prices in Singapore are around SG$2.30.
-
This really reminds me when Gazelle told everyone that MINDEF has 345678 job positions for locals, and then asked everyone to prove him wrong
-
More importantly, maybe you should enlighten us as to why Taiwan has cheaper petrol prices?
Your article is outdated like the gas prices earlier. From January 2005 the oil reserves of 4 million has dropped by 1.6 million barrels to 2.4 million barrels in January 2006.
It's not June 2008. Maybe you can post updated information.
The KMT caucus leader has already stated that Taiwan has no more oil reserves. Something which you fail to provide an explanation for.
According to January 1, 2005 estimates by the Oil and Gas Journal, Taiwan's proven oil reserves are approximately 4 million barrels. Total oil production for 2005 is expected to be 8,404 bbl/d, of which 800 bbl/d is crude. Oil consumption for 2005 is estimated at 1,045,000 bbl/d. The majority of the oil is consumed by the industrial sector. Most of Taiwan's crude oil imports come from the Persian Gulf, though West African countries also are important suppliers.
According to Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Taiwan had 2.4 million barrels of proven oil reserves in January 2006. During the first half of 2006, Taiwan produced 7,910 barrels per day (bbl/d) of oil, of which only 800 bbl/d was crude oil. Almost 90 percent of Taiwan’s oil production comes in the form of refinery gain, resulting from the country’s large petroleum refining sector. EIA forecasts that Taiwan will consume 973,000 bbl/d of oil in 2006, virtually all of which will come from imports.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Taiwan/Oil.html
US$1.11 = SG$1.5096
The price of unleaded gasoline will rise to 33.9 Taiwan dollars (1.11 US) per litre from 30 Taiwan dollars. The price of diesel fuel jumps to 31.9 Taiwan dollars per litre from 27.5 Taiwan dollars.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific_business/view/350428/1/.html
The DPP's proposal has won the backing of ruling Kuomintang legislators. Chang Hsien-yao, a KMT caucus leader, pointed out that Taiwan does not produce oil, but has to rely on imports for all crude oil and gasoline products.
-
Originally posted by huzane89:
Why should I? I just stated the facts. Its either you have the article or you dont. Which I doubt you do.Delaying tactic.
Anyways, I dont need an unexisting korean article to prove that singapore petrol is the cheapest in the world. I know that its NOT.
I am sure your must have already done your own assessment about what I said before doubting me right. If you are smart and wise like everybody else (e.g. Maurizio Eagle etc) then I believe your chance of proving me wrong should be >50% isnt it?If so, why dont you accept my offer? In return I promise that if I cant show you the article I will apologies to you. How about that?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You have yet to prove to me that you have not spouted rubbish as per the points above. That is the main subject of contention between us. Any reason why you consistently like to bring in unrelated context?
You give a satisfactory explanation why I should apologize for you to show the article when our discussion is about Luxembourg, in which I have already proven you to be rubbish and of no substance, then I deal with you.
If I can show you the article, would you apologies to me and say you will never reply to any of my post and thread forever.
DEAL or NO DEAL?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Yes.
which one? hehehe