hobiejoe wrote: 
Getting field data from under a collapsing eruption column might be a bit risky, but hey, the wine's good, why not?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
I would think that the critical conditions between bouyant and collapsing eruption columns might easily be ascribed to cheap Aussie shiraz.
 
Need any field data collecting?

 hobiejoe wrote: 
wanna drink? I got a bit of really cheap Aussie shiraz/grenache here and am looking for someone to talk about the critical conditions between buoyant eruption columns and collapsing ones and no one else on the entire innernet is interested...

 Beaker wrote: 
Let me get this straight. After reading and reflecting upon your original post I made a comment about it, and as I had the temerity to not agree with it I was rewarded with some patronizing instructions to go away and read it and all the links again until I understood it properly. No discussion or reasoning from you. Just a (possibly correct, granted) insinuation that I'm an idiot.
 
Which was a tadge irritating, hence my subsequent response. With hindsight you're right, it did sound a little prescriptive, but it wasn't directed at the wider community, just you. If you tell me how to interpret your posts forgive me if I return the favour and give you a little pointer in communicating rather than broadcasting.
 
And just to underline my point, and to show good manners, I took your advice, re-read the article and the links in order to critique the blah that you originally linked to at greater length. Which, needless to say, you ignored.
 
The only other time I've ever suggested to someone how they might post was also you, under almost exactly the same circumstances. Your "Defender Of The Community" schtick doesn't wash with me anymore and I'm fed up with your browbeating and harassment of people who displease you. So you'll forgive me if I don't kowtow to your orders to "accept....or move on".
 
So yes, I'll go back to sensibly ignoring any propaganda you may choose to regurgitate, or slumbering as you think of it, and only rouse myself when it'll result in a worthwhile exchange.
 
Nighty-night.
 

apart from the vapid attempts at a flame war... let's take the basic situation on its merits:

optimists tend to hold that the modern world will favor free trade, the encouragement of business, new innovative products and solutions to scarcity
ergo the fact that China has a certain monopoly position is not a threat (it doesn't have a monopoly position, btw it's just big and cheap, which is not quite the same thing) .

pessimists tend to hold that scarcity will not be solved by the market and that conflicts will break out as various interest groups weigh up the cost of war against the cost of going without. The classic example I guess is Japan going to war in the 1930s (largely to secure its oil supplies as it saw them threatened by US dominance (kind of ironic, if the US had guaranteed them supply they may have thought differently about the prospect of war))

Now, I never thought I'd hear me championing free markets and business solutions against attacks by Beaker, but you live and learn. Frankly, I am an optimist. China has nothing to gain by denying the rest of the world access to minerals it has unless it is to gain a competitive advantage in one or two industries. (Funny that, I vaguely remember another major power following a similar route for much of the past century and backing this up with military might). Sure the threat is there but its not automatically a call to arms or the loss of all power to China. In the end China needs the rest of the world just as much as we need them. Moreover, there is nothing stopping the rest of the world finding other solutions/sources if this is in their interest. As long as they remain open for business, I see no threat. If they close for business, they harm themselves as much as us.

 hobiejoe wrote: 
  well done! 

 hobiejoe wrote: 
One would think the use of the image of Mao/Obama would portend a polemic.

I, too, prefer expressions of original thought and viewpoint. Thanks for the effort.  I simply do not have the time to read more than a relative few of the links regularly posted on the forum.  A summary often is helpful.             

 hobiejoe wrote: 

Ohhhhhh snap!!

 Beaker wrote: 
How about mature posters writing - that's writing as opposed to cut'n'pasting links - posts that spell out their point of view in a clear and hopefully concise matter in the first place.
 
By all means use links to support an argument, but just posting a link and then expecting us to work out what the point is you're trying to make is just lazy.
 
How about you read the sources, and then tell us what you think and why. I recall making the same point a while ago.
 
The point I was making was that in my opinion the piece was partisan and that the Mao/Obama caricature at the start was a bit of a pointer in that direction. Jay Leno being quoted in a supporting article as describing Brazil as the next Saudi Arabia due to its' lithium deposits wasn't entirely expected. Wise-cracking TV host and geologist. Who knew? Oh, and I suspect he may have been thinking of Bolivia and its Uyuni salt flat deposits.
 
Yes, there is some concern as to the distribution of increasingly important yet rare minerals, and the degree to which their supply comes directly or indirectly under the control of China. However the article is clearly designed to support the mining industry in its attempts to open up vast swathes of the USA to environmentally unfriendly mining while blaming the Democrats. Hilariously, she says "After years of obstructing the industry, Democrats are now rushing to re-open rare earth metal mines in the face of this national security threat. The last one shut down in 2002." Prime chutzpah as I do rather think the other guys were in charge then.
 
Similarly amusing is the attempt to blame environmentalists for an increase in demand because of all those solar panels we're making. No mention of anything containing, oooh, maybe microchips for a start.
 
There you go, a somewhat expanded version for you. Good luck with your ongoing cut'n'paste campaign on behalf of the oil and mining interests of North America.

 Manbird wrote: 

more like..buried

splat

 Beaker wrote:

Not nothing, but nothing to panic over.

And falling prices are what shut down domestic producers in the first place. If prices are rising incentives are rising to reopen shuttered mines.

 Beaker wrote:

All the dirt that held ore when the mines that were extracting it shut down still hold it. China could hold its rare earth reserves hostage in the short term but they can't stop us from digging up our own. Our mines have regulatory obstacles, but the same process that imposed them can remove them.

This is not a looming crisis, it's a threat. And the Evil Environmentalists Conspiracy theory is waaaay overblown. I very much doubt most of those pushing green energy policies have the barest clue what they imply for resource use. They aren't intentionally pushing us towards some civilization-ending cliff.

 katzendogs wrote: 

 Manbird wrote: 
i can't see them. may not be to late.

Edit: Sorry. I read that as a question

 cookinlover wrote: 
 ;-)   

 Manbird wrote: 
Look, cookies knee prints.

 Manbird wrote: 

 katzendogs wrote: 

 cookinlover wrote: 

 cookinlover wrote: 
wash your hands real good after shaking hands with them because... you know.... wipety-wipe... ewwwww....