Ashrem
Oh Wise One
The last thread wasn't enough?
(not to mention the first time you brought it up in this thread?)
Just not sorry enough not to do it all over again....
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
The Other "Why I'm better than everyone else" thread
- Thread starter Ashrem
- Start date
- Status
(not to mention the first time you brought it up in this thread?)
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Hmmm.... it's not that I love repeating myself, it's that I write so much in so many places that sometimes I forget what I've said where, and how often I've said it. That you remembered just shows you have a better memory than I.
And, to tell the truth, the thought was just triggered by some of the things others wrote here more recently.
And finally, persuasion is not usually accomplished by saying it once, no matter how eloquently you may have say it. Most people have to be reminded over and over and over....so in the long run the fact that I have said it over and over only means you and others get to think about it over and over and over. Thinking about serious topics is a good thing, don't you think? LOL
So, in the end, the answer to your question is: "No, the last thread probably wasn't enough." Lucky you.
AJ
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
I'm pretty sure no reasonable person would consider taking up 8 of the first 11 pages of this thread as "saying it once." I assure you, you said it many times over the week and a half you argued it last time in the same thread.
Last edited:
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I'm just a bit confused. There are 11 pages of this thread? And I take up 8 of them? Or do you mean I have posted often enough to have something on 8 of the eleven pages? And are all those 8 on the same subject?
BTW, it takes, on average 7 advertising contacts for a person to remember the product being offered and to act upon the offer. So if I've actually put the same message out there 8 times on the 11 pages of this thread, --- my computer says 17 if I understand what you mean by a 'page' btw -- I'm doing a good job of advertising my position, don't you think? LOL.
AND, just to be clear, the response in this thread, called "things that bother me" is just shadow of the much longer argument I moved out of this thread. Be thankful I didn't repeat the entire argument.
AJ
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
You started arguing it on Page 3 of this thread, and when it got to page 11, you were still arguing it. Now you've apparently felt the need to bring it up again on page 16 so that your position now occupies 10 pages out of 17.
I just don't understand why you would apologize for it in this thread, then do it all over again, in this thread?
Last edited:
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
No matter how many times you advertise a crap product, I'm still not buying it... Move over so I can drive a little faster than the very conservative posted safe "limit", thanks 
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
They make medication for that now.
DeletedUser
Guest
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
No matter how many times you advertise a crap product, I'm still not buying it... Move over so I can drive a little faster than the very conservative posted safe "limit", thanks
1) That you respond as you do here....but not in the thread where the full argument has been made -- only proves the "advertising" is working.
2) Calling a product "crap" does not make it so. Like many things, if you call it "crap" the only thing you've told me is how your "taste buds" work, not what the actual state of the item might be.
3) Your implied argument that the posted speeds are "conservative" may have some merit...but without documentation or at least further investigation I suspect it's more of the same "unsupported emotional grabbing at whatever quick line of reasoning is available to make a point" displayed in our current sociopolitical environment. You, and I say this honestly, are a much better thinker than that. Do your homework and then we'll debate this point -- perhaps in the larger and more appropriate thread I started but which no one "dared?" to refute -- even try? (Actually they probably didn't even read it....see my next point.)
4) Finally, I have to add I hate the ACTION of attempting a discussion in the midst of an unwillingness to actually read long and complex presentations that may even look like "walls of text." That I often write a more complex argument -- and thus with more words -- cannot, itself, be argued. But the conclusions I come to, and the evidence and reasoning I present, can be rationally argued -- but only if the one desiring to do so has read them, done their homework, and engages in the spirit of honest debate. Sadly, in our "twitter world" -- where memes and tweets merely repeat the mantras of the position taken without serious debate or discussion -- people seem to think it sufficient and right to abandon actual investigation, discussion and debate in favor of a quick jab at the character of their opponent and/or a claim that he or she suffers some psychological imbalance manifested as a "phobia" of some kind.
Opinions are like food. The best foods tend to take time to digest and too much of the sweet and easy over the long run may rot the brain.
AJ
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
1. Nah, recent posts are at the top, so that's where responses go, that's all. Advertising doesn't "work" unless it results in a sale. In this case, every time you bring up the subject it only makes me think more on the issue which more firmly entrenches me in my position.
2. Your strict adherence to an often arbitrary rule and demand that others do the same has the texture, aroma, as well as the taste of a deuce. Now you know how incredibly accurate my tactile and olfactory senses are too. Also see 1 above. If the product was good, spending more time thinking about it should make me agree, but if the underlying principle is as flawed as it is, the opposite effect occurs.
3. You don't need documentation, (although you could probably find some) simple logic and a handful of obvious facts will suffice if the goal is to show that speed limits are imperfectly chosen:
What are the chances that they set the speed limit at the absolute maximum safe speed that a mint condition new vehicle with an experienced driver in ideal road conditions can navigate?
Is it not just a wee bit more likely that they either aim it towards an average if not even lower?
Also, speed limits virtually never increase despite very significant upgrades to vehicles and roads, which doesn't make sense.
E.g. highway 2 in Canada: it's been 65mph my whole life, had upgrades to the rail guards, widened lanes, and added additional lanes while cars gained ABS, skid control, better tires, lane departure warnings and I'm sure a bunch of other car stuff.
Yet no change I speed limit...so either the speed limit was way too high in the 60s, or it's very conservative right now, and either(or both) of those makes my case that the number is pulled out if someone's rear or at least isn't infallible.
E.g.2 Edmonton &Calgary playground zones.
Up until 2107 Edmonton did not have 20mph zones near playgrounds, just schools on school days. Then despite the fact that the number of accidents was virtually the same as Calgary with its year-round zones, they were added to Edmonton as a political move.
(Calgary and Edmonton have pretty much the same pop & pop density)
Not a whole lot of unsupervised kids chasing a ball across the street at a park in 2 feet of snow 4 hours after sundown at minus 30.
4. TL;DR
iirc part of what you considered the strongest part of your argument was the statistcs that showed a correlation between speed and accidents.
The issue I raised was that statistics such as those are very flawed as they don't take specific variables into account.
Here's an example, of what I mean:
I live in a jurisdiction where you can legally turn right at a red light after coming to a complete stop.
I'm sure you can find a statistic showing that not stopping completely causes accidents x% of the time.
Here is a situation where those stats arent relevant:
That semitruck is a perfect blocker for my right turn, and the odds of an accident caused by my failure to completely stop at the red light become infinitesimal.
The same goes for driving at a speed over the posted limit. Under some circumstances the increased risk is barely measurable.
So my position remains that if someone wants to do 70 in a 65 you can just move over and let them.
2. Your strict adherence to an often arbitrary rule and demand that others do the same has the texture, aroma, as well as the taste of a deuce. Now you know how incredibly accurate my tactile and olfactory senses are too. Also see 1 above. If the product was good, spending more time thinking about it should make me agree, but if the underlying principle is as flawed as it is, the opposite effect occurs.
3. You don't need documentation, (although you could probably find some) simple logic and a handful of obvious facts will suffice if the goal is to show that speed limits are imperfectly chosen:
What are the chances that they set the speed limit at the absolute maximum safe speed that a mint condition new vehicle with an experienced driver in ideal road conditions can navigate?
Is it not just a wee bit more likely that they either aim it towards an average if not even lower?
Also, speed limits virtually never increase despite very significant upgrades to vehicles and roads, which doesn't make sense.
E.g. highway 2 in Canada: it's been 65mph my whole life, had upgrades to the rail guards, widened lanes, and added additional lanes while cars gained ABS, skid control, better tires, lane departure warnings and I'm sure a bunch of other car stuff.
Yet no change I speed limit...so either the speed limit was way too high in the 60s, or it's very conservative right now, and either(or both) of those makes my case that the number is pulled out if someone's rear or at least isn't infallible.
E.g.2 Edmonton &Calgary playground zones.
Up until 2107 Edmonton did not have 20mph zones near playgrounds, just schools on school days. Then despite the fact that the number of accidents was virtually the same as Calgary with its year-round zones, they were added to Edmonton as a political move.
(Calgary and Edmonton have pretty much the same pop & pop density)
Not a whole lot of unsupervised kids chasing a ball across the street at a park in 2 feet of snow 4 hours after sundown at minus 30.
4. TL;DR
iirc part of what you considered the strongest part of your argument was the statistcs that showed a correlation between speed and accidents.
The issue I raised was that statistics such as those are very flawed as they don't take specific variables into account.
Here's an example, of what I mean:
I live in a jurisdiction where you can legally turn right at a red light after coming to a complete stop.
I'm sure you can find a statistic showing that not stopping completely causes accidents x% of the time.
Here is a situation where those stats arent relevant:
That semitruck is a perfect blocker for my right turn, and the odds of an accident caused by my failure to completely stop at the red light become infinitesimal.
The same goes for driving at a speed over the posted limit. Under some circumstances the increased risk is barely measurable.
So my position remains that if someone wants to do 70 in a 65 you can just move over and let them.
Last edited:
DeletedUser20396
Guest
We live in a place where the freeway is 70 mph. speed limit. The min. is 45. My mom drives 70 to 75, depending on how much she wants.
EnchantedEnder
Member
Just curious & confused. Is the topic of this thread really "The Other Why I'm Better Than Everyone Else Thread"? Just my opinion but this topic doesn't sound like much fun & from my reading of it, it does't appear to be fun either. Could we get back to whatever topic this was supposed to be please? And hopefully change the title
Last edited:
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Maybe, but not today. I've actually changed the topic 5 times since August of 2017. My thread, my topic.Just curious & confused. Is the topic of this thread really "The Other Why I'm Better Than Everyone Else Thread"? Just my opinion but this topic doesn't sound like much fun & from my reading of it, it does't appear to be fun either. Could we get back to whatever topic this was supposed to be please? And hopefully change the title
- Status