This is for Australian orgerz- but damn it, if da whole world can join in, why da hell not hey? Who wantz 2 keep payin high pricez for freakin petrol? NOT I!!

Please see following:

IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN AUSTRALIA DID NOT PURCHASE A

DROP OF PETROL FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES

WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE

ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS

THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES.

THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT TO THEM "

DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF PETROL

THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO

AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT.



WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING

TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE

ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO?

REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF PETROL GOING UP BUT AT THE

SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES

ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT

IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING SUPPLIES MEDICAL

SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO!

WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY,

WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.

FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE

SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF AUSTRALIA "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"

We should try this in America, they predict that gas will be about $4 a gallon by the end of the year.

Oh, and before one of you europeans post, bitchin' about how much petro cost in your country, i already know how much you guys pay!

Has this ever worked in the past?

I got this email last Sept. and everyone was gonna do it until they said on the news that it would make the gas prices higher for some reason ( I forgot why)so nobody did it.

Sweeny79 said:

Could have been oil producers propoganda.

TMPletz said:

naw it was something about oil transport and how lotsa gas would have no where to go if they coldn't fill the pumps up so oil companies would have to pay the drivers overtime to take it back to where the oil was stored and they would have to pay for the transport twice, or some shit and all that driving around would cause the companies money so they'd have to raise prices to make up for the losses of that one day.
I wish it could work though.

Sweeny79 said:

I guess that makes sense.

TMPletz said:

it does.

Fucking oil companies have us trapped!

this is a REAL LONG response to the "no petrol day" emails from snopes, I've bolded some important parts...

from http://www.snopes.com/pol.../nogas.asp

STATUS: FALSE

Origins: The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year.

This year's e-mails (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 1 September 2005, or a three-day event later in the month) is a carbon copy of the e-mail that circulated in May 2004 (right down to the labeling of the putative boycott effort as "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY"), which was itself a recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999. All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their dubious effectiveness. A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little participation and had no effect on retail gasoline prices because they were based upon flawed premises. This year's version is no different.

First of all, everyone's "not purchasing a drop of gasoline for one day" will not cause oil companies to "choke on their stockpiles." Oil companies run their inventories on a weekly basis, and since the "gas out" scheme doesn't call on people to buy less gasoline but simply to shift their date of purchase by one day, oil company stockpiles won't be affected at all.

Next, merely shifting the day(s) of purchase will not "hit the entire industry with a net loss of over $4.6 billion." Consumers won't be buying any less gasoline under this "gas out" proposal; they'll simply be purchasing gas a few days earlier or later than they usually would. The very same amount of gasoline will be sold either way, so the oil companies aren't going to lose any money at all.

By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one.

Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stay up, American consumers are prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.

Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain, service station operators — the people who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person.

Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America:

Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died. Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices.


Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic.


In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station . . . yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane.


Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth.


A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations.


"We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference."


Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business.

"It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet.


Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out.

Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.

An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices? Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.

since that post above was sooooo long, I'm gonna requote this so it isn't lost...

endorphin74 said:

ps-I know the response from snopes target the US, but it's pretty applicable all around.

The sad thing is, as I've talked to folks today about the prospect of $4 gallons, I've yet to have one person respond that they were willing to consider car pooling or changing their driving behavior...

endorphin74 said:

endorphin74 said:

Dat SUCKZ!!