The way to break out of the pro-car, anti-car debate?



"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Drs wrote:
> > In your dreams. *You* never provided anything but bald assertions.
>
> and yet he's backed it up now, so just kiss (maybe not in the
> aforementioned way tho :D) and make up!

Yeah, by using statistics from a link someone else provided.

> [AustinPowersVoice] Yeah baby, yeah [/AustinPowersVoice]
>
> and for lordy's sake, stop arguing about everything:D Just ride, darn
> it

This is Usenet.

> PS what were those new tyres you imported?

Avocet Fasgrip Duro Plus K 700x32.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"sheik yerbouti" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 28 May 2004 04:50:01 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> reported fatality rates:
>>> china - 26.1
>>> australia - 1.8
>>>
>>> clearly australia is *far* safer than china, in terms of road
>>> safety.
>>>
>>> you say "He's never produced a shred of actual evidence and shows no
>>> sign of ever doing so.", well here it is.
>>>
>>> you say " My point is that this ****** "sheik yerbouti" never backs
>>> his claims up with links or cites", well here i am, backing it up.
>>>
>>> now kiss my ****
>>
>> In your dreams. *You* never provided anything but bald assertions.
>
> the evidence is staring at you, at the top of this post. are you blind
> or just stupid, or both?

I'm neither, as all the world can see. All you've done is use a statistic
from a link that someone else gave. To have even the slightest credibility
you should have provided the evidence yourself when first asked but you
didn't. Moreover, the way you used that statistic out of context shows how
little you understood the source.

> you can clearly see that chinese traffic is far less safe than in
> australia. do you want it spelled out in a more simple fashion? what
> aren't you getting?

Get back to us if and when you ever graduate from high school.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:23:28 +1000, "DRS"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> the evidence is staring at you, at the top of this post. are you blind
>> or just stupid, or both?
>
>I'm neither, as all the world can see. All you've done is use a statistic
>from a link that someone else gave. To have even the slightest credibility
>you should have provided the evidence yourself when first asked but you
>didn't. Moreover, the way you used that statistic out of context shows how
>little you understood the source.
>

am i waiting here at your beck and call to produce an answer before
everyone else? that is - and there's a pattern emerging here - another
ridiculously stupid thing to say.

maybe you want to criticise the person who found the link for
reproducing someone else's work too? perhaps you expect me to stand by
the roadside in Xuoxing and measure crash frequency?

i did not use the statistic out of context. what the hell are you
talking about? it clearly shows that china's road fatality rate is far
and away above australia's, *per registered motor vehicle*.

ok - road deaths per registered motor vehicle are the units of measure
here, the fairest way of determining fatality risk and accounting for
china's relative lack of vehicle ownership

>> you can clearly see that chinese traffic is far less safe than in
>> australia. do you want it spelled out in a more simple fashion? what
>> aren't you getting?
>
>Get back to us if and when you ever graduate from high school.

in this country it is customary to win the argument before insulting
the intelligence of your opponent, moron,
 
"sheik yerbouti" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:23:28 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> the evidence is staring at you, at the top of this post. are you
>>> blind or just stupid, or both?
>>
>> I'm neither, as all the world can see. All you've done is use a
>> statistic from a link that someone else gave. To have even the
>> slightest credibility you should have provided the evidence yourself
>> when first asked but you didn't. Moreover, the way you used that
>> statistic out of context shows how little you understood the source.
>
> am i waiting here at your beck and call to produce an answer before
> everyone else? that is - and there's a pattern emerging here - another
> ridiculously stupid thing to say.

You twice made a bald faced assertion. You failed to back it with evidence.
Your problem.

> maybe you want to criticise the person who found the link for
> reproducing someone else's work too? perhaps you expect me to stand by
> the roadside in Xuoxing and measure crash frequency?

I was impressed with the link Shane Stanley posted. You've only impressed
me with your stupidity and dishonesty.

> i did not use the statistic out of context. what the hell are you
> talking about? it clearly shows that china's road fatality rate is far
> and away above australia's, *per registered motor vehicle*.

That's not what you posted. This is what you posted:

>> reported fatality rates:
>> china - 26.1
>> australia - 1.8

Not a word about "per registered motor vehicle". That's why David Formosa
asked you "What units are they in?"

> ok - road deaths per registered motor vehicle are the units of measure
> here, the fairest way of determining fatality risk and accounting for
> china's relative lack of vehicle ownership
>
>>> you can clearly see that chinese traffic is far less safe than in
>>> australia. do you want it spelled out in a more simple fashion? what
>>> aren't you getting?
>>
>> Get back to us if and when you ever graduate from high school.
>
> in this country it is customary to win the argument before insulting
> the intelligence of your opponent, moron,

I know. It's a shame you don't take your own advice.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" wrote
> sheik yerbouti writes:

> > reported fatality rates:
> > china - 26.1
> > australia - 1.8

> What units are they in?

Will that make a difference?

Theo
 
On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:53:23 +1000, "DRS"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>That's not what you posted. This is what you posted:
>
>>> reported fatality rates:
>>> china - 26.1
>>> australia - 1.8
>
>Not a word about "per registered motor vehicle". That's why David Formosa
>asked you "What units are they in?"
>
>> ok - road deaths per registered motor vehicle are the units of measure
>> here, the fairest way of determining fatality risk and accounting for
>> china's relative lack of vehicle ownership
>>

hey moron, you can see that i answered david's question in the text
YOU QUOTED above. it is in road deaths per registered motor vehicle.
that is the units of measurement. he asked the question, i answered
it.

are you shooting for the guiness book of records entry for idiotic
argument? i have answered every point you've brought up - the fact i
used shane stanley's link doesn't change that one bit.
 
On Mon, 31 May 2004 08:01:12 +0800, "Theo Bekkers"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" wrote
>> sheik yerbouti writes:
>
>> > reported fatality rates:
>> > china - 26.1
>> > australia - 1.8
>
>> What units are they in?
>
>Will that make a difference?
>
well those figures corrected for the no. of registered vehicles, which
is a fairer measure than basing it on population. if you do that,
china comes across as a lot safer than it is, because most people
still don't own cars.
 
"sheik yerbouti" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 03:53:23 +1000, "DRS"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> That's not what you posted. This is what you posted:
>>
>>>> reported fatality rates:
>>>> china - 26.1
>>>> australia - 1.8
>>
>> Not a word about "per registered motor vehicle". That's why David
>> Formosa asked you "What units are they in?"
>>
>>> ok - road deaths per registered motor vehicle are the units of
>>> measure here, the fairest way of determining fatality risk and
>>> accounting for china's relative lack of vehicle ownership
>
> hey moron, you can see that i answered david's question in the text
> YOU QUOTED above. it is in road deaths per registered motor vehicle.
> that is the units of measurement. he asked the question, i answered
> it.

Why didn't you answer him directly?

"in this country it is customary to win the argument before insulting the
intelligence of your opponent, moron,"

You lose, again.

> are you shooting for the guiness book of records entry for idiotic
> argument? i have answered every point you've brought up - the fact i
> used shane stanley's link doesn't change that one bit.

It completely destroyed any credibility you might have had, as I have
already explained. But you are boring me now.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Drs wrote:
> [B But you are boring me now.



you both. us all



--
 
"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> writes:

> "? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" wrote
> > sheik yerbouti writes:
>
> > > reported fatality rates:
> > > china - 26.1
> > > australia - 1.8
>
> > What units are they in?
>
> Will that make a difference?

Yes. Numbers without units are meaningless. Numbers only become
usefull when there combined with some sort of unit.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
 
On 01 Jun 2004 22:22:46 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> "? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}" wrote
>> > sheik yerbouti writes:
>>
>> > > reported fatality rates:
>> > > china - 26.1
>> > > australia - 1.8
>>
>> > What units are they in?
>>
>> Will that make a difference?
>
>Yes. Numbers without units are meaningless. Numbers only become
>usefull when there combined with some sort of unit.

there are exceptions.. ratios for example where the same units are
being compared. the ratio is unitless :)
 
"flyingdutch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Drs wrote:
> > [B But you are boring me now.
>
> you both. us all

Nobody's sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to read anything.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
Drs wrote:
> Nobody's sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to read anything.




Dude. I work with 'consultants'. They just talk about someone else
holding a gun paradigm to one's head and restructuring their perception
of reality moving forward:D :D :D

... and arguing with a guy called 'Sheik' holds a certain negative risk
assessment, one thinks...



--
 
sheik yerbouti <[email protected]> writes:

> On 01 Jun 2004 22:22:46 +1000, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
> <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

> >Yes. Numbers without units are meaningless. Numbers only become
> >usefull when there combined with some sort of unit.
>
> there are exceptions.. ratios for example where the same units are
> being compared. the ratio is unitless :)

Point taken, and unitless constents.


--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
The way to break out of the pro-car, anti-car debate?
Replies
73
Views
3K
Australia and New Zealand
? The Platypus
?
D
The way to break out of the pro-car, anti-car debate?
Replies
73
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
?
D
The way to break out of the pro-car, anti-car debate?
Replies
73
Views
2K
Australia and New Zealand
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
?
scotty72
Cyclists break the road rules...
Replies
55
Views
3K
Australia and New Zealand
Peter Cremasco
P
asterope
crazy idea for a short break
Replies
25
Views
1K
Australia and New Zealand
asterope
asterope
Top Bottom Back