![]() |
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in <792b3fe2-f375-446e-9e13-3282d9d7334c@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >Every 8 hours, someone dies because of speed cameras Really? According to what credible peer-reviewed evidence? Anyway, you've been had. The petition is a joke, and the joke is on you. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Jun 8, 8:10*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > <derderderder...@hotmail.com> said in > <792b3fe2-f375-446e-9e13-3282d9d73...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: > > >Every 8 hours, someone dies because of speed cameras > > Really? *According to what credible peer-reviewed evidence? How can you tell when one of the trolls has no way of refuting the evidence of their opponent(s)? They start whittering on about "peer review". Strange that they don't seem to worry about peer review when someone (say Brake, or the government, or the owner of the pretentiously named Crapman Central) makes the case *for* speed cameras. We all know that the trolls just use "peer review" as a rather pathetic stick to beat Safe Speed with, because it's the only stick they can find. Personally I wish they'd do something else with that stick instead (which would have the added bonus of meaning that the trolls could no longer talk). As Paul frequently said, in such simple terms that even the trolls could understand it, anyone on the Internet could have reviewed his pages, and if anyone had properly refuted them (as opposed to coming up with flawed, agenda-driven, anti-car bollocks like Crapman did), Paul would have made the relevant corrections. But no-one ever did. The trolls know that perfectly well, but they pretend not to, because they'd rather carry on with the "peer review" accusations no matter how irrelevant they are to the overall debate. A principle part of the trolls' "debating" technique is to pretend not to understand things which they find inconvenient. So, that's established then. Every time a troll says that Safe Speed isn't peer reviewed, they're actually saying "I've lost the argument and the 'peer reviewed' stuff is just sour grapes". > Anyway, you've been had. *The petition is a joke, and the joke is on > you. Which is why I said "Someone apart from me appears to be laughing at the car-hating trolls". I can see a joke for what it is, which is why I don't take you at all seriously (and just as well really). Anyway, Spindrift's signed the petition! Since you lot worship him, doesn't that mean that you all have to sign it as well? If you don't then he might run you over on his non-existent bicycle. |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:27:40 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in <eb9ef00f-2dda-4e07-ac53-609369062b6a@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: >How can you tell when one of the trolls has no way of refuting the >evidence of their opponent(s)? Easy: they refuse point blank to answer a straight question like "According to what credible peer-reviewed evidence?" or "So where's this list of supposed anti-motorist measures, then?" Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Jun 9, 5:06*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:27:40 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > <derderderder...@hotmail.com> said in > <eb9ef00f-2dda-4e07-ac53-609369062...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>: > > >How can you tell when one of the trolls has no way of refuting the > >evidence of their opponent(s)? > > Easy: they refuse point blank to answer a straight question like > "According to what credible peer-reviewed evidence?" or "So where's > this list of supposed anti-motorist measures, then?" Where's *your* peer-reviewed evidence? Oh dear, no straight answer. Troll. And Crapman is *still* denying that there are any anti-motorist measures, despite even the Mayor of London speaking of their existence. He's not called Crapman for nothing. When I do decide that I can be bothered to put up such a list, it'll be really funny watching Crapman throw the toys out of his pram due to having to admit that he supports every single thing on the list. Because his toys always leave the pram when his support of an anti-motorist measure is exposed (like recently when I asked him whether he was in favour of the latest round of VED rises...he didn't like that one bit! If you don't like your lies being exposed, Crapman, best to stop lying, surely....) |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:29:47 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in <16ff3b25-f306-4f68-ae13-e4ca2c7b9d05@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>: >> >How can you tell when one of the trolls has no way of refuting the >> >evidence of their opponent(s)? >> Easy: they refuse point blank to answer a straight question like >> "According to what credible peer-reviewed evidence?" or "So where's >> this list of supposed anti-motorist measures, then?" >Where's *your* peer-reviewed evidence? I am not the one making the claim. The onus is always on the person making the claim, to prove it. In your case, there are two claims: that speed cameras kill, and that there are many anti-motorist measures in force. You have yet to provide evidence to support either. I know that Smith's technique was to make an unbelievable claim and then state that it was proven unless others could disprove it to his satisfaction using only evidence of which he approved, that is one of the reasons he was spanked so severely on this newsgroup - we have many here who are experienced research scientists and stand the scientific method. So: prove your claims using credible evidence published in reliable peer-reviewed sources independent of the person making the claim. Novel syntheses from published sources, such as those on which Smith relied (and using in his case a very creative interpretation of novel synthesis), are not valid unless they can stand the basic tests of the scientific method. Requiring your opponents to prove a negative is a test only in as much as it demonstrates absence of intellectual rigour. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound |
|