In article <
[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>>
>> Slipperier than it should be, perhaps, but you're as much to blame as
>> him for that (if not more).
>>
>> And it appears you still haven't read and understood what I wrote.
>> Are you going to, or are you just going to tell us why you should be
>> allowed to remain stupid because you can't be bothered to understand
>> what we're trying to tell you?
>>
>>
>> dave
>
>
>Dearest David:
I see no David here.
> Ad hom noted.
I see no ad hominem, either. I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm telling
you you're acting like one; if you don't like being told you're acting
like an idiot, stop acting like one.
Bs pbhefr, V'ir lrg gb zrrg nalobql jub pna haqrefgnaq gur qvfgvapgvba
lrg fgvyy arrqf gb unir vg cbvagrq bhg gb gurz, fb V'z cebonoyl jnfgvat
zl gvzr urer.
> I hope you are willing to work on making helmets more
>effective,
An easy way to make helmets more effective is to make sure people
understand what they actually protect against and what they don't.
If you're willing to actually look into that yourself, you're doing an
excellent job of hiding all the evidence of that willingness.
> rather than insulting the intelligence of survivors of head
>injury fatalities.
Can you point out a survivor of a head injury fatality whose intelligence
I've insulted? (Hint: Start by finding a survivor of a head injury
fatality, and then check whether I've insulted their intelligence.)
If a cyclist did something potentially dangerous, that they wouldn't've
done without the helmet, because they didn't know the helmet wasn't
sufficient protection, and received a head injury as a result (fatal
or not), then their ignorance was a contributing factor to the injury.
That ignorance may or may not have been because of stupidity, and it may
or may not have been the type of stupidity that causes them to refuse
to try to understand something just because they can't be bothered.
But it's still an injury caused (at least in part) by ignorance, and
pointing that out isn't insulting their intelligence (or knowledge).
dave
(almost time to put this thread in the killfile, I think)
--
Dave Vandervies
[email protected]
The only things I see wrong with this code are the algorithm and
the implementation.
--Billy Chambless in comp.lang.c