If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
(Brent P) wrote in
: > In article >, Joe wrote: >> (Brent P) wrote in >> : >> >>> In article >, Joe wrote: >>>> (Brent P) wrote in >>>> : >>>> >>>><huge snip> >>>> >>>> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words >>>> or less? >>> >>> Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior illegal >>> has negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with >>> regard to under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases that >>> can result in death or injury. >> >> 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. 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. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in > : > >> In article >, Joe wrote: >>> (Brent P) wrote in >>> : >>> >>>> In article >, Joe wrote: >>>>> (Brent P) wrote in >>>>> : >>>>> >>>>><huge snip> >>>>> >>>>> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words >>>>> or less? >>>> >>>> Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior > illegal >>>> has negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with >>>> regard to under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases that >>>> can result in death or injury. >>> >>> 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. > > 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. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
(Brent P) wrote in
: > In article >, Joe wrote: >> (Brent P) wrote in >> : >> >>> In article >, Joe wrote: >>>> (Brent P) wrote in >>>> : >>>> >>>>> In article >, Joe wrote: >>>>>> (Brent P) wrote in >>>>>> : >>>>>> >>>>>><huge snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 >>>>>> words or less? >>>>> >>>>> Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior >> illegal >>>>> has negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with >>>>> regard to under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases >>>>> that can result in death or injury. >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> 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... 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. > 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. 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. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
In article >, Joe wrote:
>> If that's the way you feel, kill file me then... > 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. If I am troll, why are you feeding me? >> 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. > I didn't read the whole thread, which is why I asked you for your point > in 50 words or less. You can't be bothered.... > 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. But you're not a troll.... *snort* |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in > : > >> In article >, Joe wrote: >> >>>> If that's the way you feel, kill file me then... >> >>> 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. >> >> If I am troll, why are you feeding me? > > I'm not feeding, I simply want to know why you came up with such a > glittering generality. 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? >> You can't be bothered.... > > Exactly. Makes it hard to understand that way. >>> 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. >> >> But you're not a troll.... *snort* > > Nope. Just real curious as to what's behind your less-than-50-word > statement above. Simple mathematics and decades of study that shows no safety benefit to underposted speed limits. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
More power to the police in high speed pursuit
(Brent P) wrote in
: > In article >, Joe wrote: >> (Brent P) wrote in >> : >> >>> In article >, Joe wrote: >>> >>>>> If that's the way you feel, kill file me then... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> If I am troll, why are you feeding me? >> >> I'm not feeding, I simply want to know why you came up with such a >> glittering generality. > > 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? 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. >>> You can't be bothered.... >> >> Exactly. > > Makes it hard to understand that way. On the contrary. The KISS theory rules. No wiggle room that way. >>>> 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. >>> >>> But you're not a troll.... *snort* >> >> Nope. Just real curious as to what's behind your less-than-50-word >> statement above. > > Simple mathematics and decades of study that shows no safety benefit > to underposted speed limits. That's quite a departure from your original statement. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
From the Land of the Police Pursuit | Eeyore | Driving | 4 | February 4th 07 05:27 AM |
Police in pursuit of a stolen Dump Truck..................news footage | Lufthansi | Driving | 1 | July 21st 06 05:45 PM |
1972 Beetle Loses Power at Sustained High Speed / RPMs | [email protected] | VW air cooled | 11 | April 23rd 06 02:37 PM |
High speed pursuit of a BMW with an almost insane tragic ending ( Video-Clip ) | [email protected] | BMW | 1 | March 18th 06 02:12 AM |
High speed police chase in California -> where is full video ofshooting? | Some Guy | Driving | 2 | May 17th 05 08:55 AM |