Re: Petition

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> 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

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 8, 8:10 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:48:48 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> 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.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:27:40 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> 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

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Jun 9, 5:06 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:27:40 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> 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....)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:29:47 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> >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