or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Re: I crash into religion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: I crash into religion

post #1 of 231
Thread Starter 
On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:44:59 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:


>I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The helmet
>did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore, I will continue
>wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange Usenet Strangers post on
>some newsgroup.



Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #2 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:53:19 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:44:59 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The
>>> helmet did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore,
>>> I will continue wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange
>>> Usenet Strangers post on some newsgroup.

>>
>>
>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>> ride?

>
>I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
>know-it-alls. Sorry.
>


Dear Bill,

More and more, it looks as if you prefer to ask them.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
post #3 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:57:20 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:53:19 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:44:59 GMT, "Sorni"
>>>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The
>>>>> helmet did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore,
>>>>> I will continue wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange
>>>>> Usenet Strangers post on some newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>>>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>>>> ride?
>>>
>>> I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
>>> know-it-alls. Sorry.
>>>

>>
>> Dear Bill,
>>
>> More and more, it looks as if you prefer to ask them.

>
>Confusing rhetorical with hypothetical?
>


Dear Bill,

Actually, smug and holier-than-thou and know-it-all.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
post #4 of 231
Thread Starter 

Re: I crash into religion

On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:53:19 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
>know-it-alls. Sorry.
>


Weak, weak weak. When asked a question with an uncomfortable answer
you retreat behind excuses about the person asking it.

I played your little game with a contrived scenario and now you can't
play mine? Your scenario even containted elements of unreality,
whereas mine is entirely possible. And you still can't answer
truthfully. That shows a lot about your "thinking."

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #5 of 231
Thread Starter 

Re: I crash into religion

On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:53:19 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>
>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>> ride?

>
>I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
>know-it-alls. Sorry.
>


Sorry to reply to this post twice, but the more I think about if the
more I have to laugh. You've really should be thanking me for being
harsh with you in the past as you're grasping at straws to avoid
answering a simple question about a plausible situation that might
point out how lame your thinking is.

I can just imagine you at the computer thinking "how can I avoid this?
Oh, I know, I'll claim his answer to my question wasn't clear enough?
Or maybe if he asks again, I'll claim he's been too mean to me. Yeah,
that's it. And maybe if that doesn't work, I'll claim I don't trust
him not to snip and distort my response. Yeah, that's it."

You really should thank me for being harsh with you and giving you an
"out." Though most people can see through it. The whole siutation is
funny and sort of pathetic. Ooops, dissed you again. So there's more
reason for you now to respond..

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #6 of 231
Thread Starter 

Re: I crash into religion

On Sun, 14 May 2006 22:09:13 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:53:19 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>> I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
>>> know-it-alls. Sorry.
>>>

>>
>> Weak, weak weak. When asked a question with an uncomfortable answer
>> you retreat behind excuses about the person asking it.
>>
>> I played your little game with a contrived scenario and now you can't
>> play mine? Your scenario even containted elements of unreality,
>> whereas mine is entirely possible. And you still can't answer
>> truthfully. That shows a lot about your "thinking."

>
>John,
>
>I do not want to give you the satisfaction of answering your question.
>
>I'm sorry you can't accept that, but it's the truth.
>
>As with most things "helmet", it's none of (universal) your business.
>
>PS: You didn't "play my little game"; you tap-danced.
>
>Get the last word on this; I'm done.


It's really cowardly to just retreat like that rather than admit
you're wrong.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #7 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
> > nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
> > ride?

>
> I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
> know-it-alls. Sorry.


Let's _all_ ask!

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a nice
place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still ride?

I'm sure many of us will get the same rude label. But perhaps
_someone_ can get him to actually answer a simple question!

- Frank Krygowski
post #8 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I do not want to give you the satisfaction of answering your question.
>


I think that is a "Yes, Sorni would ride without a helmet" then as I
can't imagine any other answer giving John satisfaction


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
post #9 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
>>
>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>> ride?

>
> I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
> know-it-alls. Sorry.
>


Whoop, whoop, Swerve Alert, Swerve Alert, whoop, whoop.....

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
post #10 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Let's _all_ ask!
> >
> > Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
> > nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
> > ride?

>
> Why would my helmet be unavailable?


Because you were distracted by evading questions, and forgot to bring
it along.

Given that situation, would you ride your bike or not?

>
> If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would you
> still use it?


If _some_ studies said it didn't, I'd probably get curious and actually
read the studies. (I do read, you see.) If I found that the "it
doesn't work" studies were very robust and free of obvious error, while
the "it works" studies were obviously very faulty, I'd stop wearing it.

True story, BTW.

And you?

- Frank Krygowski
post #11 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

in message <QJO9g.3119$G95.676@tornado.socal.rr.com>, Sorni
('soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com') wrote:

> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>> ride?

>
> Why would my helmet be unavailable?


Because you'd fallen and broken it?

Put it differently. You are riding along and fall. Your helmet lands in a
cow **** (or dog ****, or bear ****) and gets covered in it, but
fortunately protects your head from getting similarly dirty. The helmet
does not appear to be damaged. There's a stream (or creek, or water
trough) a mile away.

Do you

(i) Abandon the stinking thing and ride home
(ii) Hang it on your handlebars and ride to the water to clean it
(iii) Walk to the water to clean it
(iv) Put it back on your head and ride on?

> If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would you
> still use it?


Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When all else fails, read the distractions.
post #12 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

In uk.rec.cycling Sorni <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:44:59 GMT, "Sorni"
>> <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I've banged my head on something hard while wearing a helmet. The
>>> helmet did its job (at least the one *I* ask it to do). Therefore,
>>> I will continue wearing a helmet no matter what a bunch of strange
>>> Usenet Strangers post on some newsgroup.

>>
>>
>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>> ride?


> I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
> know-it-alls. Sorry.


Ok.

Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
ride?

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
post #13 of 231
Thread Starter 

Re: I crash into religion

On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:58:25 GMT, "Sorni"
<soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote:

>jtaylor wrote:
>> "Sorni" <soryousucknyoureallyreallysucki@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:QJO9g.3119$G95.676@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Sorni wrote:
>>>>> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>>>>>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you
>>>>>> still ride?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't answer hypothetical questions from smug, holier-than-thou
>>>>> know-it-alls. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>> Let's _all_ ask!
>>>>
>>>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>>>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>>>> ride?
>>>
>>> Why would my helmet be unavailable?
>>>
>>>> I'm sure many of us will get the same rude label. But perhaps
>>>> _someone_ can get him to actually answer a simple question
>>>

>>
>> Again:
>>
>> Sorni, if for some reason you had your bike with you and were in a
>> nice place to ride, but your helmet was unavailable, would you still
>> ride?

>
>Depends.


What a coward you are.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
post #14 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> Sorni wrote:


> > If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would you
> > still use it?

>
> If _some_ studies said it didn't, I'd probably get curious and actually
> read the studies. (I do read, you see.) If I found that the "it
> doesn't work" studies were very robust and free of obvious error, while
> the "it works" studies were obviously very faulty, I'd stop wearing it.
>
> True story, BTW.


The interesting thing here is the use of the word "knew". If you
continue to "know" something is true in the face of convincing evidence
to the contrary then that is the kind of "knowledge" that comes from
faith rather than reasoning.

--
Dave...
post #15 of 231

Re: I crash into religion

Sorni wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:


> > Do you
> >
> > (i) Abandon the stinking thing and ride home
> > (ii) Hang it on your handlebars and ride to the water to clean it
> > (iii) Walk to the water to clean it
> > (iv) Put it back on your head and ride on?
> >
> >> If you knew something worked but some studies said it didn't, would
> >> you still use it?

> >
> > Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.

>
> And the ridiculous extent to which ideologues will go to prove (not)
> ridiculous points.


Anything but answer the question...

--
Dave....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Re: I crash into religion