and again, now you base your argument on sarcastic, ad homonym attack.
So how does this stream of attacks, combined with PRIDE affect any point at hand? It doesn’t.
I don’t care if you argue in front of the supreme court, a faulty assumption, straw man, ad homonym attack is devoid of LOGIC.
I am not a lawyer. Maybe that’s why I think the substance and logic of the subject at hand do matter.
The above is what I posted, and what I was attacked by several posters for. They seemed to take issue with the notion that oil is not infinite, by definition, just as the earth, the galaxy and the universe are not infinite. I think my second sentence was in agreement with the article, and with what I gather is your heartfelt opinion. It is really very, very silly and quite a bit ridiculous that people who agreed with me on substance felt the need to attack because they misunderstand the definition of the words finite and infinite.
So, in substance I was making two points:
1) I agree with the notion of the article that there may be more oil available then we would ever need, and it MAY be renewed inside the earth abiotically; and
2) that the use of the words "not finite" in this context was a misuse. To another poster, I suggested that a better word would be "inexhaustible", although that word would also be imprecise. The article discusses supply in both the temporal, subjective sense, and in the quantitative sense.
In sum, while agreeing with the article more or less, I took issue with a word in the title as being misleading. That is not arguing with a straw man, or illogical. To the extent I question the validity of your subsequent arguments, that is not ad hominem, although the lack of cogent reasoning throughout does point to a hominem that is in need of further training.
That is why your final claim, that you think that "substance and logic" do matter is so funny. Your arguments have never been about substance and have never applied logic.