Definitive proof ;-)

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 20:59:30 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:41:04 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2007 20:17:20 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >He missed the word 'nett'. Heinous crime.
>> >
>> >Actually, I picked the poster up on similar claims in the thread
>> >before you did. Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>>
>> But that doesn't stop you continuing to claim he never said it.
>>
>> Or are you now saying that he did say it but if you had inserted a
>> word he didn't use it would have said something different?
>
>I'm saying the meaning of teh words he posted is, to me, clearly not
>intended to be what you claim to believe the meaning to be.

But you do have quite a lot of troubloe understanding words, don't you Ian?

And probability.

And the purpose of thought experiments.

>Since you have proved yourself a master at posting contradictory
>statements in adjacent (sometime seven the same) sentences,

But only in YOUR head.

Again, this seems to be down to your problem understanding words.

You did try to highlight an example of that at one point but I easily and
completely demonstrated that you had simply confused yourself.

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:04:05 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 19:00 +0100:
> >
> > You, on the other hand are not only putting just one side of the
> > argument (which would be fair enough - it's called 'debate'), but you
> > are going one step further and desperately trying to show that there
> > is *never* a case where a helmet may save your life.
> >
>
>Now I know you are trolling. <plonk>

And yet what I said was quite true.

It seems that poor Tony has to stick his head in the sand when an argument
occurs that he just can't handle.

Bless.

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:03:20 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 19:39 +0100:
>>
>> So why are people still arguing the toss and insisting that: "no, it
>> will be safer to not wear the helmet" (in every case) is the whole
>> truth?
>>
>
>No, its not safer to wear a helmet because it will do harm as many or
>more times than it does good. If you have the foresight to know exactly
>what type of accident you are going to have beforehand so you know which
>accidents to wear it for and which not, then you would be better using
>your foresight to avoid the accident in the first place. But the rest
>of us who have unexpected accidents are safer overall without the helmet.

I'll agree it's a bit esoteric.

Obviously what you say is true in that for each unknown journey the probability
is that you will be better off not wearing a helmet than wearing one.

Which makes it all the more bizarre that you pig headedly refuse to admit,
plainly and without embelishment, that there are circumstances where a helmet
might save your life.

Then we could have avoided all this and moved on to the many reasons why helmet
compulsion is 'a bad thing'.

 

[Clive George]

"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Then we could have avoided all this and moved on to the many reasons why
> helmet
> compulsion is 'a bad thing'.

Um - I tried, but you refused to move on.

clive

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:01:19 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 20:42:41 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:29:10 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> You seem to be on the same side as I am on the general helmet
> >> debate. You say there's no one who claims that a helmet can never
> >> save your life, so what exactly is your point?
> >
> >At this stage, mainly that you're a silly twit, if truth be told.
>
> And now you've gone past rudeness to ad hominems.

Not quite (though I'm within a hairs-breadth, I agree). I'm not yet
convinced you are a silly twit, I'm merely seeking to determine if you
really are a silly twit. I' ve already established that most of your
argument is hypocritical baloney that you don't actually believe, so
the 'silly twit' hypothesis is an attempt to explain the reason for
the advancement of the argument.

> >However, I've just about demonstarted that to my complete
> >satisfaction, so will probably stop corresponding with you shortly.
>
> You mean that you've finally realised that you are arguing when
> there's nothing to argue about?

I established that you had nothing useful to offer in the topic you
believe yourself to be arguing about some time ago, yes.

> >Finally, teh strangeness that you'll criticise me for not answering
> >every one of your questions and dropping sub-threads,
>
> It would be strange if it were true.
>
> But it isn't.
>
> I merely complained that you had ignored the message reference
> where someone had said there was a zero possibility of a helmet
> saving my life after you had accused me of fabricating such a
> person.

Ah. I ignored the message I replied to? I see. You might need to
explain that one again.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> > David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Ziggy <[email protected]>:
> > > >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:44:08 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>So let me get this straight. It's OK for you to put only one side of
> > > >>the argument but if others put only the other side of the argument they
> > > >>are in denial of your argument. Yes, I see where the problem lies.
> > > >but you are going one step further and desperately trying to show that
> > > >there is *never* a case where a helmet may save your life.
> > >
> > > No, he isn't. You made that up.
> >
> > Tony wrote, in response to Ziggy's statement that 'it seems likely that
> > helmets will prevent some number of head injuries each year and reduce
> > the seriousness of some other number':
> >
> > "you are wrong for a whole load of reasons I won't go into again in
> > deference to the sanity of the rest of the group."
>
> Yes, because it is nonsense to talk about some action (wearing a
> helmet) "preventing" some number of deaths and injuries if taking the
> action increases the total number of deaths and injuries. It is a
> bogus argument, that deserves to be dismissed.

That may, in your opinion, be the case. Sadly, that was not said and so
you are, as a matter of fact, wrong.

Sorry,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:

> > and desperately trying to show that there is *never* a case where a
> > helmet may save your life.

> I have never seen Tony present that argument. Can you provide a
> reference or quote for this? Or is it a slander?

'Tony wrote, in response to Ziggy's statement that 'it seems likely that
helmets will prevent some number of head injuries each year and reduce
the seriousness of some other number':

"you are wrong for a whole load of reasons I won't go into again in
deference to the sanity of the rest of the group."'

You, by the way, responded to that. So I think you may have seen Tony
present that argument.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ziggy wrote on 19/03/2007 19:00 +0100:
> >
> > You, on the other hand are not only putting just one side of the
> > argument (which would be fair enough - it's called 'debate'), but you
> > are going one step further and desperately trying to show that there
> > is *never* a case where a helmet may save your life.
> >
>
> Now I know you are trolling. <plonk>

That's the second time this month that Tony's claimed to be a plonker.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:

> > Are you a politician Ian? If not, please stop behaving as though you are
> > on Question Time. It is possible to debate intelligently.
>
> It is also possible to say what you actually mean. I'm not sure why
> ziggy won't. Almost every post says one thing, then next sentence
> says another thing. Yet you accuse _me_ of being the politician?

Where have I accused you of being the politician?

> Strange.
>
> It's actually quote difficult to argue intelligently with someone that
> says opposite things in consecutive sentences.

Indeed. Could you give clear examples, please?

> Your argument would seem to be that if ziggy says two mutually
> contradictory things, I should only pay attention to the one he means.

Er, no. My argument is that honest discussion is more intelligent than
lies, hyperbole and ignorance.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:05:43 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 20:45:50 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:32:31 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On 19 Mar 2007 19:50:35 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >It's at least as useful as your experiment.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you make the same mistake as others.
> >> >
> >> >Yes. It is at least as useful as your postulated experiment.
> >>
> >> No it isn't, because I already accept that the outcome of the
> >> experiment is exactly what its proponent expected it to be.
> >
> >Eh? So your experiment proves what you postulated to your complete
> >satisfaction, and his experiment proves what he postulated to your
> >complete satisfaction, but his experiment is less useful? By that
> >argument, they are as useful as each other.
>
> Oh, good grief.
>
> Pay VERY careful attention.
>
> Take it one word at a time, if necessary.
>
> The first (thought) experiment was to prove a point the other party.

Illustrate. Thought experiments do not generally prove things. They
illustrate things, or serve as an elaboration of a train of thought.
A very few thought experiments actually prove things in any meaningful
sense.

> They were not convinced of this point.

You have no proof of this deduction. A logical argument where one
step of deduction is disputed is useless. However, I'll carry n
through your (now fatally flawed) argument.

> Thus there was some point in them carrying out the (thought)
> experiment, even should it fail to convince them. There was alway a
> chance.

> On the other hand, the second experiment was designed to prove a
> poin to ME.

No, it was not. It was to illustrate that your postulated (thought or
otherwise) experiment did not produce a conclusion useful to the
advancement of the debate. It did that.

> However, since I already accepted that point, there was no point in
> carrying out the (thought) experiment.

Yes there is. You are not the sum total of all that matters in the
universe.

> There.
> That wasn't too hard, was it?

Well, it proves that the second experiment was MORE useful than yours.
By your argument, yours failed to convince anyone of anything, but the
second convinced everyone that matters (in that you were convinced
after the experiment was aired). So actually, I was completely
correct in saying the second was at least as useful as the first - it
did what it was intended to do. Yours did not.

Functionally, the second experiment was completely successful, and the
first (yours) failed. It is reasonable to regard a successful
experiment as more useful than a failed experiment (depending upon the
circumstances of the failure, of course).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
>
> > > Are you a politician Ian? If not, please stop behaving as
> > > though you are on Question Time. It is possible to debate
> > > intelligently.
> >
> > It is also possible to say what you actually mean. I'm not sure why
> > ziggy won't. Almost every post says one thing, then next sentence
> > says another thing. Yet you accuse _me_ of being the politician?
>
> Where have I accused you of being the politician?

It is implicit in the question "Are you a politician Ian?".

> Indeed. Could you give clear examples, please?

I have done so. They are in google. I don't intend to drag them out
again.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 21:21:51 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:01:19 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 19 Mar 2007 20:42:41 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:29:10 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You seem to be on the same side as I am on the general helmet
>> >> debate. You say there's no one who claims that a helmet can never
>> >> save your life, so what exactly is your point?
>> >
>> >At this stage, mainly that you're a silly twit, if truth be told.
>>
>> And now you've gone past rudeness to ad hominems.
>
>Not quite (though I'm within a hairs-breadth, I agree).

You don't think that "mainly that you're a silly twit" constitutes an
ad-hominem?

>I'm not yet
>convinced you are a silly twit, I'm merely seeking to determine if you
>really are a silly twit. I' ve already established that most of your
>argument is hypocritical baloney that you don't actually believe, so
>the 'silly twit' hypothesis is an attempt to explain the reason for
>the advancement of the argument.

But, Ian. There IS no argument.

What is this mythial argument of which you speak?

>I established that you had nothing useful to offer in the topic you
>believe yourself to be arguing about some time ago, yes.

But you just kept on and on and on and on regardless?


>> I merely complained that you had ignored the message reference
>> where someone had said there was a zero possibility of a helmet
>> saving my life after you had accused me of fabricating such a
>> person.
>
>Ah. I ignored the message I replied to? I see. You might need to
>explain that one again.

(Deep breath) OK, here goes.

Now then, Ian. Take the words one at a time and TRY to understand.

You said that a poster or posters who were claiming that a helmet would never
save my life were a figment of my imagination.

Remember that?

I them posted a message reference to a poster who had said exactly that.

At first you ignored the reference.

Then you claimed he didn't say what he had said.

Then you came up with some weird thing about he wouldn't have said what I
claimed he'd said if he'd inserted a word that he hadn't used.

Basically, you lied and then tried to cover it up by saying that the person
meant something else but had ommited a word that completely changed the meaning
of what was written.

Good Job!


And the fact that you had replied to the post only worsens your mendacity in
claiming I fabricated the poster in question. It's irrelevant to your ignoring
it as concrete evidence that you claim of fabrication was false.

 

[Tony Raven]

Ian Smith wrote on 19/03/2007 19:06 +0100:
>>
>> There is no such thing as a negative probability.
>
> What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y?
>
> If X actually decreases the chance of Y occurring, there is a
> non-positive non-zero probability, so what would you call it?
>

I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.

[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.1562

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:20:28 -0000, "Clive George" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Ziggy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Then we could have avoided all this and moved on to the many reasons why
>> helmet
>> compulsion is 'a bad thing'.
>
>Um - I tried, but you refused to move on.

Well, I would have done had Ian not continually pursued an argument that wasn't
there with entirely fictional accusations of all sorts of impropriety on my
part.

Perhaps if you had tried to get him to stop making wild and unfounded
accustations things WOULD have moved on.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > and desperately trying to show that there is *never* a case where a
> > > helmet may save your life.
>
> > I have never seen Tony present that argument. Can you provide a
> > reference or quote for this? Or is it a slander?
>
> 'Tony wrote, in response to Ziggy's statement that 'it seems likely that
> helmets will prevent some number of head injuries each year and reduce
> the seriousness of some other number':
>
> "you are wrong for a whole load of reasons I won't go into again in
> deference to the sanity of the rest of the group."'
>
> You, by the way, responded to that. So I think you may have seen Tony
> present that argument.

Tony's argument does not appear to me to be what you calim. I have
elaborated elsewhere.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 21:30:28 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>Illustrate.

You are getting truly desparate when you have to resort to playing with words.

You'll be pointing out spelling errors in a minute

>
>No, it was not. It was to illustrate that your postulated (thought or
>otherwise) experiment did not produce a conclusion useful to the
>advancement of the debate. It did that.

How could suggesting an experiment that would 'illustrate' something that I was
already fully convinced of possible achieve ANYTHING?

Give up, Ian, you've lost the plot, mate!

>> However, since I already accepted that point, there was no point in
>> carrying out the (thought) experiment.
>
>Yes there is. You are not the sum total of all that matters in the
>universe.

Again, you are playing with words. It was me that he suggested the experiment
to, but if you wish to be pedantic for no reason, "there was no point in MY
carrying out the (thought) experiment"


>Well, it proves that the second experiment was MORE useful than yours.
>By your argument, yours failed to convince anyone of anything, but the
>second convinced everyone that matters (in that you were convinced
>after the experiment was aired). So actually, I was completely
>correct in saying the second was at least as useful as the first - it
>did what it was intended to do. Yours did not.
>
>Functionally, the second experiment was completely successful, and the
>first (yours) failed. It is reasonable to regard a successful
>experiment as more useful than a failed experiment (depending upon the
>circumstances of the failure, of course).

Complete and utter gibberish. (In that I was convinced BEFORE the experiment was
aired thus collapsing the rest of your argument).

 

[Ziggy]

On 19 Mar 2007 21:34:11 GMT, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Mar, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
>> Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Ekul Namsob <> wrote:
>>
>> > > Are you a politician Ian? If not, please stop behaving as
>> > > though you are on Question Time. It is possible to debate
>> > > intelligently.
>> >
>> > It is also possible to say what you actually mean. I'm not sure why
>> > ziggy won't. Almost every post says one thing, then next sentence
>> > says another thing. Yet you accuse _me_ of being the politician?
>>
>> Where have I accused you of being the politician?
>
>It is implicit in the question "Are you a politician Ian?".

Oh dear.

It's that problem you have with understanding simple English again, isn't it,
Ian?

Lets give you a little lesson.

An accusation is a statement. i.e. "You are a politicain, Ian".

What Ekul said was "Are you a politician Ian?"

That is what is technically known as 'a question'.

You even used the word 'question' yourself, didn't you?

Do you know what it means, Ian?

If I say to you: "Have you got a twenty pound note", do you understand that I'm
not ACCUSING you of having a twenty pound note, I'm ASKING you if youi have one.

I hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:57:56 GMT, Ziggy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:46:22 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > >>that one day not wearing a helmet could cost me my life.
> > >
> > >And that "possibility" is, um, zero (or perhaps negative) -
> > >statistically; at least that's what the best and largest studies
> > >show us.
> >
> > In the first place, may I suggest that you learn something about
> > statistics?
> >
> > There is no such thing as a negative probability.
>
> What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y?
>
> If X actually decreases the chance of Y occurring, there is a
> non-positive non-zero probability

Really?

If X actually decreases the chance of Y occurring then the probability
that X increases the chance of Y = 0.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ian Smith wrote on 19/03/2007 19:06 +0100:
> >>
> >> There is no such thing as a negative probability.
> >
> > What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y?
> >
> > If X actually decreases the chance of Y occurring, there is a
> > non-positive non-zero probability, so what would you call it?
> >
>
> I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.
>
> [1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.1562

Go on. I'm intrigued. I don't have a subscription to that site. Would
you please summarize for me?

Thanks,
Luke


--
Lincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET)
Swansea City 2-2 Southend United
We went up twice with Tilly and Brush

 

[Ziggy]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 21:37:24 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian Smith wrote on 19/03/2007 19:06 +0100:
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a negative probability.
>>
>> What is the probability that x increases the chance of Y?
>>
>> If X actually decreases the chance of Y occurring, there is a
>> non-positive non-zero probability, so what would you call it?
>>
>
>I wonder what Ziggy knows that Richard Feynman [1] and Paul Dirac don't.
>
>[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.49.1562

I wonder if Tony knows that his link doesn't work.

I suppose it's a bit hard for a plonker to put a link into a post.