Re: Can you make it to the market on a bike?

[Martin Dann]

Bill Z. wrote:
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> LOL!
>
> As Tom Sherman, having nothing to say, tries to help "Guy" get the
> troll of the month award.

I think that one has already been awarded to Bill Z. for
the second month running.

 

[Bill Z.]

"Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Zaumen wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> LOL!
> > As Tom Sherman, having nothing to say, tries to help "Guy" get the
> > troll of the month award.
>
> Zaumen is a bike lane and helmet fundamentalist - ain't going to
> change his mind with reality!

You guys are the one preaching fire and brimstone - how bike lanes and
helmets are the work of the devil, without any proof whatsoever. Now
you are reduced to silly name calling, which is all you have to offer.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Z.]

[email protected] (Tom Keats) writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>> LOL!
> >>
> >> As Tom Sherman, having nothing to say, tries to help "Guy" get the
> >> troll of the month award.
> >
> > Zaumen is a bike lane and helmet fundamentalist - ain't going to change
> > his mind with reality!
>
> Tar-Baby ain't sayin' nuthin',
> and Brer Fox, he just lay low.

Are both of you practicing so you'll fit in at a trailer park?

 

[Bill Z.]

Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> LOL!
> > As Tom Sherman, having nothing to say, tries to help "Guy" get the
> > troll of the month award.
>
> I think that one has already been awarded to Bill Z. for the second
> month running.

Marting Dunn is going for argumentum ad homimen to cover up the fact
that he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

 

[Bill Sornson]

Martin Dann wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Absurd. If I feel a seatbelt restrain me in a panic stop, then I
>> /know/ it worked as intended.

> Yes you will know it will work as intended. Next time you
> will drive faster knowing your seatbelt will restrain you
> if you have an accident.

Horseshit.

HTH

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

> You remind me of the person who told me to shut up because I had lost
> the argument (in late winter 2002) about WMD in Iraq.

Hillary? LOL (Google her /and/ her hubby's words on the matter.)

 

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Martin Dann <[email protected]> writes:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> LOL!
>>
>> As Tom Sherman, having nothing to say, tries to help "Guy" get the
>> troll of the month award.
>
> I think that one has already been awarded to Bill Z. for
> the second month running.

So far in this current discussion, /nobody/ has said
anything to actually promote the cause of bicycling.

If awards are to be given, shouldn't they be for
positively promoting bicycling in a manner that
doesn't make us all look like a bunch of asses?

I see mostly a silly clash of egos, vainly pitting
themselves against the inexorable gravitational pull
of a Tar Baby from which no light escapes.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>> You remind me of the person who told me to shut up because I had lost
>> the argument (in late winter 2002) about WMD in Iraq.
>
> Hillary? LOL (Google her /and/ her hubby's words on the matter.)

Hillary and Bill, the Republicans in Democratic clothing?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>
> Horseshit.

I highly recommend fenders for your bicycle when riding in Amish and
Mennonite country, because the substance Sorni mentions.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> You remind me of the person who told me to shut up because I had
>>> lost the argument (in late winter 2002) about WMD in Iraq.
>>
>> Hillary? LOL (Google her /and/ her hubby's words on the matter.)
>
> Hillary and Bill, the Republicans in Democratic clothing?

So why does no one (read: media) call them on it?

You saying you won't vote for Mrs. Bill? (Oh, nooooooooooo.)

Bluto Bill

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 22:30:09 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

>> Yes you will know it will work as intended. Next time you
>> will drive faster knowing your seatbelt will restrain you
>> if you have an accident.
>
>Horseshit.

I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps you
should, it's quite illuminating stuff.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:40:39 -0000, [email protected] said in
<[email protected]>:

>And it's what Bill Zaumen does: When losing one argument, he tries to
>distract by resurrecting a different argument. And he does it
>featuring a biased and distorted statement of his opponents' views, so
>he can pretend he "won" that one.

If he did not pretend to himself that he won very argument, Zaumen
would probably lose heart and go away. It's like professional
wrestling: Zaumen must maintain the keyfabe, the internal fiction
that his views have some kind of validity. This is, of course, one
of the things that makes him so funny

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

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Just zis Guy, you know?:
> >> Yes you will know it will work as intended. Next time you
> >> will drive faster knowing your seatbelt will restrain you
> >> if you have an accident.
> >
> >Horseshit.
>
> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
> studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps you
> should, it's quite illuminating stuff.


Maybe, but what's the worth of evidence compared to the persuasive power
of a dirty word? ;-)



--
Mark, UK
"When you've told someone that you've left them a legacy the only decent
thing to do is to die at once."

 

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
> studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps you
> should, it's quite illuminating stuff.

You're not /seriously/ suggesting that real-world observations could
possibly create a more accurate picture than a gut feeling are you?

Deary me, you'll be telling us that the Earth is a ball several billion
years old going around the sun next!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 7, 3:01 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>
> > Horseshit.
>
> I highly recommend fenders for your bicycle when riding in Amish and
> Mennonite country, because the substance Sorni mentions.

Ditto for western Ireland, although there it comes mostly out of
sheep. And is diluted to a nasty, runny soup by the rain.


- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
>> studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps you
>> should, it's quite illuminating stuff.
>
> You're not /seriously/ suggesting that real-world observations could
> possibly create a more accurate picture than a gut feeling are you?
>
> Deary me, you'll be telling us that the Earth is a ball several
> billion years old going around the sun next!

Bully Morons,

If I'm driving down a street and a child runs out from in-between two cars
and I have to panic stop to avoid hitting him or her, then I am NOT going to
start driving faster afterwards. If anything, I'd be even more
cautious...at least for a while.

HTH (but doubt it)

 

[Clive George]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
>>> studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps you
>>> should, it's quite illuminating stuff.
>>
>> You're not /seriously/ suggesting that real-world observations could
>> possibly create a more accurate picture than a gut feeling are you?
>>
>> Deary me, you'll be telling us that the Earth is a ball several
>> billion years old going around the sun next!
>
> Bully Morons,
>
> If I'm driving down a street and a child runs out from in-between two cars
> and I have to panic stop to avoid hitting him or her, then I am NOT going
> to start driving faster afterwards. If anything, I'd be even more
> cautious...at least for a while.

Um - in what way doesn't that confirm the risk compensation hypothesis?
Seems to me that it supports it completely. You've been reminded that the
risk is rather higher than you thought it was, so you compensate by driving
slower after your panic stop.

clive

 

[Bill Sornson]

Clive George wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
>>>> studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps
>>>> you should, it's quite illuminating stuff.
>>>
>>> You're not /seriously/ suggesting that real-world observations could
>>> possibly create a more accurate picture than a gut feeling are you?
>>>
>>> Deary me, you'll be telling us that the Earth is a ball several
>>> billion years old going around the sun next!
>>
>> Bully Morons,
>>
>> If I'm driving down a street and a child runs out from in-between
>> two cars and I have to panic stop to avoid hitting him or her, then
>> I am NOT going to start driving faster afterwards. If anything, I'd
>> be even more cautious...at least for a while.
>
> Um - in what way doesn't that confirm the risk compensation
> hypothesis? Seems to me that it supports it completely. You've been
> reminded that the risk is rather higher than you thought it was, so
> you compensate by driving slower after your panic stop.

Because the bully morons /always/ delete content in order to post personal
insults that sound spot-on but are in fact disingeuous at best (outright
lies more often), you might not recall that to which I originally responded.
Here, I'll go get it...

I wrote: "If I feel a seatbelt restrain me in a panic stop, then I /know/
it worked as intended."

Someone replied: "Yes you will know it will work as intended. Next time you
will drive faster knowing your seatbelt will restrain you if you have an
accident. It is called risk compensation."

So which is it? I'll drive faster as a result of risk compensation (BM #1),
or I'll drive slower (BM you)?

Here's a thought: your precious phenomenom does not apply to the particular
situation I posited. I shan't hold my breath waiting for you or any of the
bully morons (esp. Guy) to admit this.

HTH!

 

[Clive George]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the various
>>>>> studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis. Perhaps
>>>>> you should, it's quite illuminating stuff.
>>>>
>>>> You're not /seriously/ suggesting that real-world observations could
>>>> possibly create a more accurate picture than a gut feeling are you?
>>>>
>>>> Deary me, you'll be telling us that the Earth is a ball several
>>>> billion years old going around the sun next!
>>>
>>> Bully Morons,
>>>
>>> If I'm driving down a street and a child runs out from in-between
>>> two cars and I have to panic stop to avoid hitting him or her, then
>>> I am NOT going to start driving faster afterwards. If anything, I'd
>>> be even more cautious...at least for a while.
>>
>> Um - in what way doesn't that confirm the risk compensation
>> hypothesis? Seems to me that it supports it completely. You've been
>> reminded that the risk is rather higher than you thought it was, so
>> you compensate by driving slower after your panic stop.
>
> Because the bully morons /always/ delete content in order to post personal
> insults that sound spot-on but are in fact disingeuous at best (outright
> lies more often), you might not recall that to which I originally
> responded. Here, I'll go get it...
>
> I wrote: "If I feel a seatbelt restrain me in a panic stop, then I /know/
> it worked as intended."
>
> Someone replied: "Yes you will know it will work as intended. Next time
> you will drive faster knowing your seatbelt will restrain you if you have
> an accident. It is called risk compensation."
>
> So which is it? I'll drive faster as a result of risk compensation (BM
> #1), or I'll drive slower (BM you)?

Both. HTH.

Short term you'll be driving slower. Not as a result of the seatbelt
restraining you, but as a result of you having to make the panic stop in the
first place. The seatbelt isn't the important thing in your example, the
stop is.

Without the panic stop, the feeling of security the seatbelt gives you will
probably make you drive faster. Provided you don't have to do another such
stop, your "risk thermostat" will correct itself back towards where the
seatbelt is having an effect - and you will then be driving faster as a
result of risk compensation.

clive

 

[Bill Sornson]

Clive George wrote:
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see you have not read the work of Adams or Wilde, or the
>>>>>> various studies which confirm the risk compensation hypothesis.
>>>>>> Perhaps you should, it's quite illuminating stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're not /seriously/ suggesting that real-world observations
>>>>> could possibly create a more accurate picture than a gut feeling
>>>>> are you? Deary me, you'll be telling us that the Earth is a ball
>>>>> several
>>>>> billion years old going around the sun next!
>>>>
>>>> Bully Morons,
>>>>
>>>> If I'm driving down a street and a child runs out from in-between
>>>> two cars and I have to panic stop to avoid hitting him or her, then
>>>> I am NOT going to start driving faster afterwards. If anything,
>>>> I'd be even more cautious...at least for a while.
>>>
>>> Um - in what way doesn't that confirm the risk compensation
>>> hypothesis? Seems to me that it supports it completely. You've been
>>> reminded that the risk is rather higher than you thought it was, so
>>> you compensate by driving slower after your panic stop.
>>
>> Because the bully morons /always/ delete content in order to post
>> personal insults that sound spot-on but are in fact disingeuous at
>> best (outright lies more often), you might not recall that to which
>> I originally responded. Here, I'll go get it...
>>
>> I wrote: "If I feel a seatbelt restrain me in a panic stop, then I
>> /know/ it worked as intended."
>>
>> Someone replied: "Yes you will know it will work as intended. Next
>> time you will drive faster knowing your seatbelt will restrain you
>> if you have an accident. It is called risk compensation."
>>
>> So which is it? I'll drive faster as a result of risk compensation
>> (BM #1), or I'll drive slower (BM you)?

> Both. HTH.

{SNIP TAKEN BUT NOT NOTED. SHOCKING}

> Short term you'll be driving slower. Not as a result of the seatbelt
> restraining you, but as a result of you having to make the panic stop
> in the first place. The seatbelt isn't the important thing in your
> example, the stop is.
>
> Without the panic stop, the feeling of security the seatbelt gives
> you will probably make you drive faster. Provided you don't have to
> do another such stop, your "risk thermostat" will correct itself back
> towards where the seatbelt is having an effect - and you will then be
> driving faster as a result of risk compensation.

So are you and the other BMs saying we should never use anything that
involves risk compensation? Or that these things are somehow bad by their
very existence? Garden
gloves...helmets...seatbelts...shoes...sunscreen...EVIL!!!

You guys (and Guy) reach new levels of absurdity weekly...and weakly.

HTH!
>
> clive