snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:9N2dnZmfOpcFyd7bnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
OK, even though I disagree with it, I get your point. But a glittering generality like that simply isn't true because it's a glittering generality. In short, it's a trolling statement. Bait on a hook.
Go look up trolling some time, just having a different view than you isn't.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:9dKdnZcXQuQOet7bnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
glittering
Let's nip this in the bud before it gets ridiculous.
My differing view has nothing to do with your statement. Your statement is so general and outrageous that it's simply designed to elicit a knee- jerk reaction. Thus, a troll.
If that's the way you feel, kill file me then... but wait, the thread was about police chases and cutting down the carnage from them..... I'm sorry all you law-is-law (but only for other people (since you don't actually obey it to the letter yourselves)) types got upset about it. It's a fairly captian obvious statement.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:AYqdnZS1MYao-NnbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
I don't use a killfile. At any rate, you don't offend me in the least. I'm simply saying that starting off with an absurd generality puts you right in the troll camp.
I didn't read the whole thread, which is why I asked you for your point in 50 words or less.
Now don't go telling me I'm a "law-is-law" type, because you have no idea what "type" I am. I'm not upset at all. Remember, my first post to you about all this stuff was to call you a freakin' idiot. So far you've done nothing to make me want to take that back.
If I am troll, why are you feeding me?
You can't be bothered....
But you're not a troll.... *snort*
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:eMOdnZzT57CaA9nbnZ2dnUVZ_t snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
I'm not feeding, I simply want to know why you came up with such a glittering generality.
Exactly.
Nope. Just real curious as to what's behind your less-than-50-word statement above.
It's simple mathematics.
Let's 1% of drivers pulled over flee. Of 1,000 stops, 10 will flee. Let's now stop the policy of defing moving at the normal speed of traffic a a violation. Say that reduces the number of stops by 50%. Now there are
500 stops. 5 will flee.Does that example with arbitary numbers help your understanding?
Makes it hard to understand that way.
Simple mathematics and decades of study that shows no safety benefit to underposted speed limits.
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in news:Lr-dnVIXOpIDLdnbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:
Arbitrary numbers = hypothetical at best. At this point, you are strictly talking theory. So your statement is still a glittering generality with no basis in fact.
On the contrary. The KISS theory rules. No wiggle room that way.
That's quite a departure from your original statement.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.