Louisiana Americans burning British flags

[Brianwarnock]

You selectively quoted from Wiki on BP's name and trade mark. What I quoted , also from Wiki, was to show how selective yours was. The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

 

[dan-cat]

It looks rather like its just convenient for you to dismiss it, with lack of references being the poor excuse.

What I dismiss is the credibility of the context of the article.

You say that the US is the problem and this may well be true. But the opinion is placed in the context of "flag-burning hypocrisy".

Where is this flag burning? Is it on a nationwide scale? Were they just a few drunks paid by journalists? Where are the photos? Was is it a funded event?

In order to correctly elevate the flag-burning to a nation being hypocritical, which is the entire thrust of the article, we need to know some more details of the event rather that "the sight of". We're not given anything just a reaction to it. This allows the writer to create his own scope of the event for himself.

I was always taught at school when writing on opinion you must give an adequate explanation of what you are writing on. This grounds your opinion into context.

If the article read "The sight of 2 US citizens burning a Union Jack"... then the notion of national hypocrisy quickly becomes ridiculous. It's for this very reason that I believe that any details were left out.

 

[Alc]

You selectively quoted from Wiki on BP's name and trade mark. What I quoted , also from Wiki, was to show how selective yours was. The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

When I worked for the company, back in the late '90s/early '00s, the merger with Amoco was in progress and when it came to decisions affecting the company as a whole it was an in-house joke that the name was 'BP Amoco', pronounced with a silent 'BP'.

 

[dan-cat]

By the way, the journalist doesn't even know what a redneck is.

A redneck by definition doesn't care about the environment.

 

[dan-cat]

The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

It's interesting that the original article doesn't point out this fact.

 

[Brianwarnock]

It's interesting that the original article doesn't point out this fact.

It was , somebody said, in the Daily Mirror, see post 38.

BTW by original argument i didn't mean post#1 but the argument about the Rednecks.

Brian

 

[Fifty2One]

You are wrong. I did not quote or paraphrase that from a wiki, it is something I happen to know as the only gas station near where I grew up was a BP station, however, I did use the picture from the wiki which is tagged as "BP British Petroleum Co., Ltd., 1922 Union Jack ad."
Your original argument was that "it doesn't stand for anything" which was an inaccurate statement.

You selectively quoted from Wiki on BP's name and trade mark. What I quoted , also from Wiki, was to show how selective yours was. The undisputable fact is that BP is not Britsh Petroleum, which was the original argument.

Brian

Actually it doesn't, it doesn't stand for anything, the name was changed to just BP some 10 years ago to reflect the International nature of the company. I read just recently that 40% of shareholders live in the US.
Only American presidents and Daily Mirror readers thing it is a wholly owned British company.

Brian

 

[Adam Caramon]

Your original argument was that "it doesn't stand for anything" which was an inaccurate statement.

Actually, his original argument, in response to me, was:

Actually it doesn't, it doesn't stand for anything, the name was changed to just BP some 10 years ago to reflect the International nature of the company.

So assuming it used to stand for British Petroleum, but no longer does since approximately 10 years ago (which is Brian's assertion), then he'd be correct.

 

[Vassago]

*FACEPALM*

Are you guys seriously debating over, not just what BP stands for (if anything), but what you each said BP stands for in an earlier post?

 

[ColinEssex]

I think, forget all this arguing and bickering, there is a major problem on the coast of the USA.

I saw a harrowing news report yesterday showing a bird (? a pelican - I couldn't tell) covered in oil unable to move - the look in the birds eye was crying out "please help me".

Forget the bickering, lets sort the disaster, fight over the money later.

I know hundreds of people are doing what they can, as is BP (whatever that stands for, British or not) this is a huge problem, hundreds of birds and animals and sealife creatures will die.

I'm sorry I started this thread now, I didn't want it to turn into a nation bash, I just quoted what the Mirror columnist said for interest sake.

Col

 

[Fifty2One]

Okay, thanks for the clarification Adam. That makes sense I guess...

So assuming it used to stand for British Petroleum, but no longer does since approximately 10 years ago (which is Brian's assertion), then he'd be correct.

 

[Vassago]

I saw a harrowing news report yesterday showing a bird (? a pelican - I couldn't tell) covered in oil unable to move - the look in the birds eye was crying out "please help me".

Col

That same picture's been all over the news here. There have been large groups of volunteers helping to clean up the birds and other animals they can find. I know a friend of mine joined them last week. He said they trained them quickly on how to clean them off without causing distress to the animals and sent them in groups. It sounded like a very organized effort.

There have been tar balls seen east of the keys now. I fear it's only a matter of time before they show up on my beach. You can be sure that when they do, I'll definitely be doing my part to help clean it up.

 

[MrsGorilla]

When I worked for the company, back in the late '90s/early '00s, the merger with Amoco was in progress and when it came to decisions affecting the company as a whole it was an in-house joke that the name was 'BP Amoco', pronounced with a silent 'BP'.

It's funny, I worked for Amoco back in the late '90s when the merger was going on. We assumed it was 'BP Amoco', with a silent 'Amoco'. All of us knew it would eventually revert back to just being 'BP'. As an aside, when Brian mentioned that BP didn't stand for anything I was a little dumbfounded as we all knew it was British Petroleum back then. I guess they re-branded themselves as not just a British company?

That same picture's been all over the news here. There have been large groups of volunteers helping to clean up the birds and other animals they can find. I know a friend of mine joined them last week. He said they trained them quickly on how to clean them off without causing distress to the animals and sent them in groups. It sounded like a very organized effort.

I saw that picture this morning on the news. If I lived anywhere near the coastline I would definitely go to help.

 

[ColinEssex]

I remember about 10 years ago BP changed the logo of the company, I don't recall a name change though.

I worked for Esso back in the 60's.

Col

 

[Vassago]

Ironic?

 

[Galaxiom]

There have been large groups of volunteers helping to clean up the birds and other animals they can find.

On the basis of their helping with the organisation BP claims they are "paying for the cleanup". But the key word here is "volunteers". It is they who are really footing the bill for the hidden cost of petroleum technology.

Meanwhile the fishing industry is paying very dearly. These guys have debts to cover but no income to do it.

 

[Vassago]

On the basis of their helping with the organisation BP claims they are "paying for the cleanup". But the key word here is "volunteers". It is they who are really footing the bill for the hidden cost of petroleum technology.

Meanwhile the fishing industry is paying very dearly. These guys have debts to cover but no income to do it.

They are being compensated by the BP and the government, who is looking to BP to pay them back. It's better than nothing. As far as the volunteers go, I'd do it for the good of the planet, it's not about money at this point.

 

[Alc]

It's funny, I worked for Amoco back in the late '90s when the merger was going on. We assumed it was 'BP Amoco', with a silent 'Amoco'. All of us knew it would eventually revert back to just being 'BP'. As an aside, when Brian mentioned that BP didn't stand for anything I was a little dumbfounded as we all knew it was British Petroleum back then. I guess they re-branded themselves as not just a British company?

I'm sure you're right about the name, as written. as far as decisions were concerned, our senior management were under no illusions as to who was calling most of the shots.

 

[Fifty2One]

But is is all about money - this is the reason why BP is concerned about 'capturing' the oil as it continues to fountain from the broken conduit rather then stemming the leak. The need to cut their losses.
The people and the area affected do not need volunteers - they need money - aside from compensating them for loss they should be offered jobs to clean up the mess and be compensated at the same wage they would have expected from their usual persuit of making a living. They will then be able to afford to spend the money to ensure the colateral income loss is prevented. The offer to compensate people for their debts from this crisis would probably not extend to all of the local area businesses or other businesses who depend on the local industries.

They are being compensated by the BP and the government, who is looking to BP to pay them back. It's better than nothing. As far as the volunteers go, I'd do it for the good of the planet, it's not about money at this point.

 

[Vassago]

The people and the area affected do not need volunteers...

Of course they don't.